Sitting of 25 June 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.: Poole and District Electric Traction Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision (No. 2) in the following Bill the Standing Orders have been complied with, viz.: Castleblaney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time) Bill.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision therein accordingly.
  Scottish-American Mortgage Company, Limited, Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill;
  540
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. Read the third time and passed.
  North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  Barnsley Corporation (Water) Bill. Order [2nd March] that the Bill be committed, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Gateshead Corporation Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill. Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from Beverley, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petition from Sleaford, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Sleaford, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Falkirk, in favour; tone upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Barming, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition of the Prudential Assurance Company, Limited, against (praying to be heard by Counsel); referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (COMMISSION ON DYSENTERY).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commission on the nature, pathology, causation, and prevention of Dysentery, and its relationship to Enteric Fever, appointed by the Secretary of State for War, August, 1900 [by Command]; to upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade on applications made during 1902 under The Railway Companies' Powers Act, 1864, and of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 223.]
  RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES ACT, 1864.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade on an Application made during the year 1902 under the Act, and of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 224.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1890 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Applications to and Proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1890, during the past year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 225.]
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (OFFICE OF LAND REVENUE RECORDS AND ENROLMENTS).
  Copy of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents from the Office of Land Revenue Records and Enrolments which are now in the Public Record Office, but are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].

  PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses
  542
  incurred by the Commissioners of Works under any Act of the present Session for the acquisition of land for the further extension of the Patent Office, and for purposes connected therewith (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.—(Mr. Elliot.)

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  Ordered, that the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee appointed in the last Session of Parliament to inquire into the ventilation of the House be referred to the Select Committee on House of Commons (Ventilation), and be printed.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Indian Native States—Administrative Control.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state how many of the Native States of India, the territory of which exceeds 100 square miles, are or were up to the end of last year under the administrative control of political agents on account of the infancy or incapacity of the chiefs of such States; and what has been the increase in their number during the last five years.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The materials at my disposal do not enable me to give the information asked for by my hon. friend. I will request the Government of India to furnish lists showing the number of States in question, now as compared with five years ago.

  Position of Naval Schoolmasters.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the Lords of the Admiralty have arrived at any conclusion with regard to the position, pay, and pension of naval schoolmasters, principal or assistant, or both; and if he can announce the prospect of an improvement for members of this branch of the service.

  543
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) As I informed the hon. Member for Portsmouth on the 11th March‡ naval schoolmasters, as chief petty officers, participate in the benefits of the improved scale of pension recently granted to chief petty officer ratings. As regards the questions of position and pay I am unable at present to add anything to my replies to the hon. Member's Questions of the 23rd March and the 2nd April.‡

  New Ordnance Maps.
  MR. KENNEDY: To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that on the new issue of the inch Ordnance maps the old boundaries of parishes and baronies are omitted, and the boundaries of urban and rural districts have not been put on; and whether, seeing that the omission of those boundaries renders those maps almost useless for the purposes of local authorities in Ireland, he will take steps to have the boundaries of the new rural and urban district councils and county electoral divisions marked in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The boundaries of parishes and baronies were omitted from the new issue of the one-inch Ordnance Survey map in order to avoid confusion with other and more important details, but, on the other hand, a special edition of the map is now issued for the local government purposes, on which the boundaries of rural and urban districts, and also those of counties, district electoral divisions, and county boroughs are shown in red. I shall be glad to send a specimen sheet to the hon. Member. Any question which may arise as to the old boundaries of parishes and baronies could always be settled on reference to the copies of maps of the old edition which are retained by the Ordnance Survey.

  Education Act, 1902, Section 23 (4)—Issue of Regulations.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, when the
  † See (4) Debates, cxix., 375.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxix., 1442, and cxx., 899.
  544
  Local Government Board will issue the regulation required by Section 23 (4) of the Education Act, 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The regulations have been prepared and I have been in communication with the Board of Education respecting them. I think it may be desirable that some representatives of the local authorities concerned should see the regulations before they are finally settled, but I hope they may be issued shortly.

  Condition of the Royal Canal, Ireland.
  MR. KENNEDY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in September 1894, Major-General C. S. Hutchinson, R.E., reported on the condition of the Royal Canal, Ireland, and corroborated the complaints of the boat-owners and traders which led to that inquiry; and whether, seeing that similar complaints are now made, he will direct an official inspection of the Royal Canal, to investigate those complaints, and to report whether the recommendations contained in Major Hutchinson's Report have been carried into effect.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Yes, Sir, it is the case that in 1894 General Hutchinson reported on the condition of this canal to the effect stated. In the following year a further inspection was made by the late Sir Francis Marindin, who also reported to a similar effect. Inspections have since been made by the Irish Board of Works. The Board of Trade have received no recent complaints of the condition of the canal, but if such complaints were addressed to the Department the Board would be prepared to consult with the Irish Office on the question of a further inspection.

  Discharge of British Seamen at Continental Ports.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now see his way to act upon the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by him, as President of the Board of Trade in 1896, to consider the question of the engagement and discharge of British

  545
  seamen at Continental ports within the home trade limits, by adopting their recommendation that fees charged for remittances under the money order and transmission systems should be abolished.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The advisability of acting on the recommendation alluded to by the hon. Member has been more than once considered. Having regard to the results that might be expected if it were adopted, and also to the fact that the larger part of the expenses in connection with remittances is already met out of the Votes, I do not feel justified in incurring the extra expenditure that would be occasioned.

  Raffles at Church Bazaars.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that on 6th February last a subscription sale and prize drawing at Perth, in aid of a minister and widow women respectively, was suppressed, he will state on what grounds raffling and prize drawings were permitted in connection with Wallacetown Parish Church, Dundee, on the 20th and 21st March last.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The hon. Member's information is not quite accurate. There was a prize drawing in aid of a widow in Perth to which, presumably, the hon. Member refers, which, in the special circumstances, was not suppressed. The lottery in aid of the minister referred to was for the purpose of raising money to enable him to carry on a litigation against his colleague. It was accordingly in an entirely different category from the prize drawings in Dundee, which were for a purely charitable object.

  Completion of Public Buildings in London.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the hon. Member for North Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what are the dates fixed by contract for the completion of the various public buildings in Whitehall, Parliament Street, and South Kensington; and is such progress being made with the respective contracts as to ensure their readiness for the public service by the specified dates.
  546
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) In answer to the first part of the Question, the dates for the completion of the contracts for the fabrics of the respective buildings are as follows:—New War-Office 26th June, 1906; New Public Offices in Parliament Street, 1st June, 1907; Royal College of Science, 1st June, 1905; Victoria and Albert Museum, 23rd February, 1907; Admiralty (Block III.) (say) 30th June, 1906. (Contract about to be made for superstructure.) With regard to the second query, I have to say that such progress is being made with the above works as to justify an assumption that they will be completed by the specified dates. In some cases it is possible that the fittings will not all be finished, but every effort will be made to avoid delay.

  Creditors of Persons confined in Lunatic Asylums.
  SIR JAMES HASLETT: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that Edmund B. Lester, a lunatic confined in the County Antrim Asylum at Belfast under an order of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and who formerly carried on business as a grocer in Belfast, has creditors to the extent of £350, while there are funds standing to the credit of the lunacy master amounting to £373 1s. 3d., as appears by the certificate of the Accountant-General, out of which and the income thereof the sum of £26 is paid by the Registrar in Lunacy to the asylum authorities for the maintenance of said lunatic, and that the Registrar in Lunacy has refused to apply this sum, or any part thereof, in liquidation of the debts due to the several creditors of the lunatic, he will explain why this person is not maintained in said asylum out of the rates as an ordinary pauper lunatic would be.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) No application has been made to the Lord Chancellor regarding debts, and so long as there are funds in Court the maintenance of the lunatic is the first charge on them. It is not the province of the Registrar in Lunacy to make orders regarding the application of funds in Court.

  Telegraph Operators—Maximum Salary.
  MR. BAYLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that for a

  547
  number of years after the issue of the Fawcett Revision the Civil Service Commissioners issued a paper to entrants to the telegraph service promising them a prospect of £190 per annum, he will state whether the maximum salary attainable by an operator of the general body in London is now only £160 per annum.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Entrants into the class of telegraphists in London, which is the only class referred to in the notice in question, have still, as they always had, the prospect of attaining to a salary of £190 a year, if they obtain promotion to the class of overseers and senior telegraphists. The scale of pay of that class is £160, increasing by increments of £8 to £190; and promotion to it depends, as it always has done, on the occurrence of vacancies. The maximum salary attainable on the class of telegraphists is £160 a year, as it was prior to the Tweedmouth Revision, the Tweedmouth Committee having expressed the opinion that that salary offered adequate remuneration for the work to be performed.

  26th June as a Public Holiday.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General, if the 26th June is to be treated in all respects as a bank holiday throughout the United Kingdom; and will the employees of his Department be paid specially for all time worked on that day.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The answer to both parts of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  Telegraph Department—Concessions to Operators and the Public.
  MR, SCHWANN: To ask the Postmaster General, whether he will state the amount of money expended each year since and including 1897 upon concessions given to operating telegraphists during that period; and whether he will also state the value of concessions given to the public at the cost of the Telegraph Department during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) It would not be possible to furnish such a statement except at a cost which,
  548
  having regard to the result produced, I should not be justified in incurring.

  Elementary Education—Pupil Teachers.
  MR. MORRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that boys and girls of twelve holding labour certificates, but not technically recognised either by the Board of Education or His Majesty's Inspector, are employed as teachers in public elementary schools; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of so modifying the Provisional Code, 1903, as to prevent such young persons being employed as teachers, except under the provisions of Article 33, and as probationers approved by the inspector.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The boys and girls referred to are generally employed as temporary monitors. In some cases, more especially in small rural schools, they are employed as permanent monitors. The Inspector will be instructed to discourage this latter arrangement; the desired effect will be produced without any specific instruction in the Code.

  Disturbance at Broadway Presbyterian Church, Belfast.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to an attack made on Broadway Presbyterian Church, Belfast, on the 19th instant; and whether, in view of the stone-throwing that existed, can he say how many arrests were made.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that seven panes of glass were broken in the church on the occasion referred to. No arrests were made; but the police are pursuing their inquiries with a view to the identification of the offenders.

  Price of Bread in Europe and America.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will collect from His Majesty's representatives abroad a statement of the present price of bread

  549
  in the capitals and chief cities of Europe and America as compared with that now prevailing in the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The answer is in the affirmative.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Rifle Practice.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the value of shooting from the saddle displayed on various occasions during the late war, he can see his way to take steps to encourage its practice.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,, for Mr. BRODRICK): The question will be carefully considered in connection with the regulations for the training of mounted troops which are now under revision.

  Trade Disputes.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, out of which Vote the expenses of the Royal Commission on Trade Disputes will be paid; and whether it is intended to give the House an early opportunity of discussing the composition of, and terms of reference to, the Commission.
  MR. ELLIOT: The expenses this year of the Trade Disputes Commission will be charged to Sub-head K. of the Temporary Commissions Vote, "Commissions not specifically provided for." The Vote has already been under discussion this session and is on the Paper for to-night.

  New Naval Base.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the arrangements for acquisition of land for the new Naval base at St. Margaret's Hope are completed; whether he can now state the extent of land acquired, and the rental and cost thereof; and when he expects to introduce the Naval Works Bill.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIR ALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The arrangements for the acquisition of land at Rosyth referred to in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question are not yet finally completed, and the particulars asked for in the second paragraph cannot therefore yet be furnished. In reply to the third paragraph, it is hoped to introduce the Naval Works Bill at an early date.
  MR. PIRIEasked as to the possibility of enlarging the existing Forth and Clyde canal.
  MR. PRETYMAN: That hardly arises out of the Question.

  Keyham Dockyard—Wages.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that several men employed as unskilled workmen in the Engineer Students College at Keyham are in receipt of wages of less than 16s. per week as against the minimum of 20s. per week; and can he explain why they are not paid on the latter scale.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Yes, sir; the attention of the Board has recently been called to the fact that there are un skilled labourers employed at the Royal Naval Engineering College on a lower scale of pay than that in force in the dockyards, and steps are being taken with a view to the removal of this anomaly.

  Moorings in Queenstown Harbour.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will explain why, upon the yacht "Bona" (which recently arrived at Queenstown to sail for the Kind's Cup) proceeding to take up her moorings at one of the Admiralty buoys, a message was at once despatched from the Guardship ordering her off, in view of the fact that there are at present some ten vacant Admiralty buoys in Cork Harbour; and whether he will give the matter his consideration, and take steps to afford the yacht "Bona," and the other competing yachts visiting

  551
  Queenstown, the facilities which are granted under similar circumstances in all home waters.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The yacht "Bona" arrived at Queenstown without her owner, and probably through ignorance of the Admiralty Regulations on the subject, which are the same for Queenstown as for other Dockyard ports, she took a special buoy which is not available for private vessels except with written permission. The "Bona" was subsequently given another buoy, and there is no ground for the suggestion that the facilities granted to yachts at other Dockyard ports are being withheld at Queenstown.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this yacht won the King's Cup yesterday?
  No answer was returned.]

  Education of Coastguard Children.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Kilnaughtin National School, Tarbet, County Kerry, is entitled to an annual grant from the Admiralty, owing to scholars being principally the children of coastguards; and, if so, can he state when, and to whom, the amount is paid.
  MR. PEETYMAN: No Report appears to have been received as to the attendance of coastguard children at this particular school, and therefore the school has not hitherto been considered for a grant from the Admiralty.

  Australia.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the South Australian Government have agreed to the view stated in his recent dispatch, that on matters relating to foreign Governments His Majesty's Government should deal with the Government of the Commonwealth, and not with the State Governments.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,. for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): I beg to read my hon. friend's answer as follows—
  552
  I have not yet received any further communication from the Government of South Australia on this subject.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will put the Question down again this day fortnight.

  Mail Service to and from Australia.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to removing the friction which has arisen between the Governments of this country and Australia, and which has led to a rupture of postal relations, he will suggest to the parties concerned that in future the owners of vessels carrying the mails should be required to pay the same rates of wages to coolies and other coloured seamen as would be paid to white men engaged in doing the same class of work.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): No, Sir, I am not prepared to make such a suggestion.

  Malta.
  *MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state how many of the elected members of the Council in Malta were returned at the last election in opposition to the retention of the Italian language; and whether an opportunity will be given to the people of Malta of testing the question at a general election before the suspension of the constitution takes place.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): No opposition was offered to the return of any of the elected members at the last election. I believe they are all in favour of the compulsory use of the Italian language, and opposed to the free choice given by the present system. In my opinion, the views of the people on this question are much better shown by their individual replies to the question which is put to every parent, than by elections, in which only a small minority have votes, and very few of this minority ever exercise their privilege.
  MR. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Council was

  553
  adjourned last week and that this question might therefore be submitted to a general election; and, further, may I ask whether it is customary to suspend the Constitution of a colony, without allowing this House the opportunity of discussing the matter.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.

  Cancer in India.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have yet arranged to have cases of cancer recorded separately in dispensary and hospital Returns; and, if not, will he say when a decision on the subject is likely to be arrived at.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The form of these Returns is still under revision, but it is probable that cases of cancer will be shown separately.

  Motor-Cars for the Highlands.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the difficulty experienced in securing the construction of light railways in the Highland crofting counties, and the success attending the use of motor-cars for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails, will he have some inquiry made respecting weight-carrying motor-cars, with a view to the placing of a motor-car on the road between Carloway and Stornoway, and between Ullapool and Garve, for the purpose of assisting the fishing and other industries, as authorised under Section 4, Sub-section (e), of The Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): Any applications from the localities interested in the sense suggested by the hon. Member will receive careful investigation, but the suggestion is not a new one, and from the discussion which has already taken place in regard to it, the Secretary for Scotland does not expect it to find favour in the locality.

  Russia and China.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any knowledge of an agreement come to between Russia and China in reference to Manchuria and Niuch wang; and if he is in a position to state what the terms of the agreement are.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): As far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no agreement has yet been come to between Russia and China with reference to Manchuria or Niuchwang; but some days ago His Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Peking was informed by the Chinese Government that an arrangement was being negotiated which would preserve Manchuria for China without loss of sovereign rights. He was also given assurances as to the Treaty rights of other Powers being respected.

  North Sea Fisheries.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the proposals contained in the Report of the International Conference on Scientific Investigations in the North Sea, will the question of securing communication with the Faroe Islands and Iceland by wireless telegraphy be considered.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman's Question enters into a larger question of the use of wireless telegraphy, as to which no decision has been taken. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion will no doubt be considered.

  Irish Historical MSS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when the Manuscripts of the Irish Franciscans will be published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission.
  MR. ELLIOT: I have been in communication with the Historical Manuscripts Commission and learn that the Transcript will be completed, it is hoped,

  555
  by 1st December at furthest, and that every effort will be made to press forward its publication.

  Claremorris Union Valuation.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he has received a copy of the Return of Area, Valuation, etc., of Claremorris Union; and if he will now be willing to give a Return on the same lines for every union in Connaught.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The hon. Member has sent me a copy of the Return referred to. The information in that Return was, it appears, procured locally by the board of guardians. There are no materials available, and no official sources of information at the disposal of Government, that would enable it to verify this Return; and for the reasons already explained by me to the hon. Member the Government is unable to consent to it.
  In reply to a further question MR. ATKINSON pointed out that the information could be obtained from the board of guardians, but as the Local Government Board had no means of checking its accuracy they could not give it its imprimatur.

  Irish Prisons.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for the names of His Majesty's prisons in Ireland where the floors of the cells are still flagged; and whether, if there are any prisons where this condition of things exists, he will advise the General Prisons Board to put in a boarded flooring instead.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): There are four prisons in Ireland in which the cells, or some of them, have stone floors. They are at Belfast, Cork, Londonderry and Tullamore. Boarded cell-floors are no longer laid down in any new work either in Ireland or England. They are held to be objectionable from several
  556
  points of view. I am informed there are at least sixteen English prisons with flagged cells.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever been in gaol?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Tullamore Gaol.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the ventilators in His Majesty's prison in Tullamore are placed within a few inches of the floor in all the cells; that, owing to their construction, they cannot be closed so as to keep out the wind from the cells; and, if so, whether the General Prisons Board will make an order to have the ventilators placed at the top instead of the bottom of the cells, as they are in other prisons.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The ventilators are placed near the floor with sliding panels which are controlled from inside the cells by the occupants. There are also outlets near the ceiling. This system of ventilation is reported to be perfectly efficient.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: Well, I tried it every day for three months and it would not work.

  Gordon-Bennett Motor Race.
  MR. LEAMY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is now in a position to say on whom will fall the cost of the extra police necessary for the protection of the public during the race for the Gordon-Bennett Cup?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Irish Government has been in correspondence with the Treasury on this subject. The Treasury is of opinion that there is no justification in principle for imposing, such a charge on the general taxpayer, and that it should be paid by the "applicants" referred to in Section 2 of the Light Locomotives (Ireland) Act, 1903. The Treasury recognises, however,

  557
  that the circumstances of the Gordon-Bennett race are so exceptional as to justify a departure, in some measure, from this principle, and is prepared to allow a portion, not exceeding £1,000, of the extra cost of the police to fall on the Constabulary Vote, provided that guarantees are received that the whole of the remainder of the extra expenditure for extra police will be borne by the promoters, or by the County Councils concerned.
  MR. LEAMY: The County Council has declined to bear any further expense.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am sorry to hear it.

  Irish Land Purchase Problem.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in the case where the owner of an estate is a lunatic and the estate is in Chancery, will the Lord Chancellor have power to sell such an estate to the tenants or to the Land Commission; and, if such power does not already exist under the Land Bill, will he make such arrangements as will enable tenants on such estates to purchase.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Under Section 63 of the Lunacy (Ireland) Act, 1871, and Section 62 of the Settled Land Act of 1882, the Lord Chancellor has power to consent to the sale of the land of lunatics so found by inquisition in certain instances. The question of amending the law to some extent, having regard to the provisions of the Land Bill, is under consideration.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked what would be the course of business next week.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: The Irish Land Bill will be taken on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. On Thursday Irish Estimates will be taken; but I am not yet in a position to say what business will be taken on Friday.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of evidence.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 226.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 226.]
  Bill, as amended, recommitted to a Committee of the Whole Mouse for Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]

  SUPPLY [14TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a sum, not exceeding £96,499, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that if it were in order to move a reduction in respect of omission to legislate on matters suggested by the Home Office Vote, this certainly would be done, but as they could only deal with administration, his reduction was rather intended to keep the debate together than to express an unusual measure of dissatisfaction at the proceedings of the Home Office during the year. It was, he believed, the intention of his hon. friend the Member for the Clitheroe Division to deal on the Amendment with the administration of the cotton cloth factories clauses, and it was possible that

    559
    he might make a case which would force them to a division. If so, he should support him. For some time past the first and principal topic dealt with annually on the Vote had been the use of raw lead in potting, with its admitted dangers. The arbitration, under the old law, on the Home Office draft rules had been postponed by Lord James for a prolonged period in order that the employers might, as he put it, set their house in order. In November, 1901, in adjourning the inquiry which was to be resumed next week, Lord James said—
    "I appeal to the employers, first in their own interest, because they must look forward to the dealing with the rule in eighteen months time, to do their best to lessen the evil. I would also appeal from a higher motive and would ask them to do the best to make the world around them a better world, and the condition of the operatives a better one than it has been."
    Last year there was a great reduction in the figures of lead poisoning, but he had to show, from the medical inspector's report, that the reduction was in the processes affected by the reforms upon which they had successfully insisted in the past; those in which fans removed dust in the dry processes. Suffering still remained from wet glaze, and the consideration of the rules dealing with the wet processes had been, and was still, postponed. This fact is additionally illustrated by the figures and by the new Report. The medical inspector, at page 249 of the Annual Report showed that while—
    "Only one case was reported from the fourteen factories using glaze of solubility less than 5 per cent.," … "the bulk of the cases are due to raw lead;"
    and at page 248 he told them that, while the number of reported cases on the whole showed diminution, as regarded women, the reduction was one of only two cases. There was no improvement in earthenware, and more that twice as many women engaged in ware cleaning had been suspended as compared with the previous year. In other words, the unsatisfactory feature of the Returns was that they had not made a serious inroad on the suffering in connection with the wet processes, and that the lessened incidence of suffering was on the men, not on the women; while suspension fell entirely on the women. The total number of permanent suspensions had
    560
    not declined at all. The number of attacks of lead poisoning, occurring for the first time in 1902, was exactly the same for women this year as last. Under the present conditions the liability of women to lead poisoning had reached an rreduciblc minimum.
    The great resource of the opponents of the restriction of the percentage of lead was suspension; the one resource urged in the circular of the employers to the House of Commons, in which they told hon. Members that if the certifying surgeons would only suspend a sufficient number of persons, that was women, all would be well. But that solution was an unfortunate one, for suspension meant starvation. The suspensions ought to have begun to decline; but, while they slightly decreased in 1901, the improvement was not maintained in 1902, and in some figures which had been brought up to date in the present year, by the kindness of the Medical Department, he found that there were fifteen suspensions from January to April, as compared with ten for the similar four months of 1902. The same figures, which were those which had been prepared for the arbitration, show that while last year there was a gratifying diminution in the severity of the cases, in the first four months of the present year this diminution had entirely disappeared, and for the first time on record the severe and moderate cases of poisoning, taken together, enormously outnumbered the slight cases. The employers pointed to their compensation scheme; but only ninety employers, in the Staffordshire potteries alone, out of 364 had joined the scheme, four firms being otherwise insured; and while there was a majority of persons employed there in the processes in question who were insured, there were almost as many not insured. The employers' scheme was not retrospective. It was unsatisfactory to the workers, who were discontented with it. They had no representation. The compensation was computed on the earnings of thirteen weeks instead of on a full week's earnings, so that in slack seasons the compensation was very small. There was no compensation unless there had been employment for thirteen weeks by firms under the scheme, though they knew how frightfully sudden cases of lead poisoning sometimes were among women. The workers complained that

    561
    persons were discharged to prevent their coming under the scheme, and the total number actually compensated was only a small proportion of those who were admitted to have suffered. They had asked for the actual numbers, publicly and privately, and had not received them. His own private application was only answered by a question for what purpose he wanted them, and, when he explained, the figures were not sent.
    There was one reform, for which they had pressed year after year, which was still withheld from them—the appointment of a woman inspector in the potteries. The peculiar incidence of the suffering which was among women, and was emphasised by the figures of the last and the present year, made this essential. The suspensions, which pressed wholly upon women, enforced that view; and he asked for an assurance that before the Estimates for next year were framed this inspection of this most dangerous women's trade should be provided. It was, however, needful that there should be a general increase in the staff of women inspectors. The Report opened with the statement that the inspecting forces, which were on paper increased (page 144) by one additional appointment, had in effect been no more than they were in 1900. The consequence of the shortness of staff was that complaints had necessarily to be neglected; a considerable number being left over in each year. Now this was, of course, disheartening to the organisations and to the individuals whose assistance to the Department was admittedly most valuable. The clergy and the ladies and other active members, for example, of the Christian Social Union were forced to send the same complaints of absence of warming in the winter months until, the coldest weather having passed, the complaints grew to be out of date; and those of the informants of the Department who were themselves workers, and who in the case of the women inspectors were seldom animated by the spirit of mischief or malice (as they were in the case of some of the men inspectors, as they saw by the Report), were also disappointed by their complaints not receiving prompt attention. He pressed, then, not only for a woman inspector in the potteries, but for a gradual and steady increase, by carefully thought-out appointments of
    562
    women as to whose suitability there could be no reasonable doubt, of the overworked staff of the Department which had been so extraordinary a success.
    A matter which they had continually brought before the House, and in which there was not much improvement as yet manifested, though he had no doubt of the evident desire of the Department to act upon the promise of the late Home Secretary, made to him on the Standing Committee when the Consolidated Act was passed. The matter was one of which both the Christian Social Union and the women inspectors had complained bitterly in the past. At page 5 in the Report of the chief inspector there was a terrible story, to which it was necessary to call the attention of the House. A Report of the Special Committee of the Research Committee of the Christian Social Union was the subject of heated controversy in 1900 and 1901, and he and his hon. friend the Member for Battersea had some trouble with some local authorities upon the subject of what were called their charges. Now nothing that they said was so strong as that which was to be found on page 5, in the account of Great Yarmouth, given by a special inspector working under the most moderate control of the superintending inspector for the southern division. The total lack of sanitary accommodation in connection with fish-curing yards was disgraceful. At Great Yarmouth last autumn the inspector told them that—
    "It is where the gutting is done that things are worst. No sanitary conveniences are provided. A few loads of stones would make all the difference to those who have to work in such abominable places."
    In the case of the South Denes, where ninety of the plots belonged to the corporation,
    "Gutting troughs stand on the ground, round which the women work in slush and filth, a disgusting state of affairs which might be remedied were the ground round and underneath the gutting troughs concreted and drained. On these plots I found 210 males and 1,100 females working, Not a single sanitary convenience for either sex; the nearest is the fish wharf, a mile away."
    This disgraceful state of things was described by hon. Members in 1900 and in 1901, and apparently nothing had yet been done. In the Scottish Report the same state of things was described

    563
    in more general terms, and without reference by name to special cases. Now there was a power to enforce sanitation where the local authority neglected its duty; and he had to ask whether, both in the case reported by one of the sub-inspectors at Edinburgh and in the Great Yarmouth case, Home Office action had been taken. There was a most damaging statement made by the special inspector sent to Yarmouth—that as regarded the kippering houses (page 6)—
    "In nearly every place illegal hours were worked."
    But they were not told what followed in the way of prosecution.
    Another subject which they had brought forward year by year was not dealt with so fully in the Report. It was another trade in which, as in fish curing, young women in great numbers worked under unfortunate conditions as to wet and dirt. It was almost a pity that Miss Paterson, at page 161, had not told them where was the place which she described. There had been a curious proof of their longstanding contention that fruit preserving was not now a season trade, and did not now deserve the exceptional treatment which was given to it by the law, in the enormous seizure of bad fruit intended for jam-making at Liverpool in the month of January. He hoped that the fact that women inspectors had not reported fully on jam this year did not mean that they had been too busy with other subjects to attend to it, but that there had been a real improvement. But he should be glad to know how the new rules were being carried out.
    He had again to comment on the slowness with which the Particulars section was extended to the trades that needed it. In some cases books giving particulars of the rates of wages were supplied to the workers voluntarily, though the workers were charged for them. But in a vast number of instances where that check upon fraud and on misunderstanding was specially needed by women, there was no check at all, and prices varied from week to week for work which from week to week was exactly the same. The particulars had at last been extended to outworkers in the wholesale tailoring
    564
    trade; but the need was just as great in the handkerchief, apron, and blouse trade. There were an immense number of London piecework trades which had now been carefully investigated, and which needed particulars, brush-making, mantle-making, corset-making, cap-making, the manufacture of paper bags, and other trades paid at low rates; while, in addition to these London trades, particulars were greatly needed in the small hardware trades of Birmingham, such as button-making, and also in the pin trade. The Report of Miss Squire on the wholesale tailoring trade, in the middle of page 189, applied to most piecework trades. She said that the real need for outworkers to have a written statement of the price was abundantly proved, and that without it—
    "The door is open for fraud,"
    while,
    "Outworkers need particulars even more than the workers inside the factory."
    The most important new departure which was made, and made very much against his wish, in the last Factory Act concerned the handing over to local authorities of duties which were so connected with those of the factory inspectors that he feared for the result. He was struck throughout the Report of the Chief Inspector by the confirmation given to his views. Many of the local authorities were admirable. Nothing could be better than the London County Council and some of the Borough Councils of London, and many of the great provincial cities. But, on the whole, the local authorities seemed to expect the law to be transposed in practice, and that the Home Office should report to them sanitary defects affecting workshops and out workers. Now, there was a certain clashing between the Home Office and the Local Government Board. There were a great number of inspectors now, appointed by local authorities, who did work which partly came within the business of each of those Departments. The Returns moved for some years ago, some of them by his hon. friend the Member for Bat ersea, some of them by Mr. Provand, and some by himself, ought to be brought up to date, and, if possible, consolidated into one Return.

    565
    They not only concerned those two Departments in England; but they also concerned the Scotch Office and Dublin Castle. Several circulars were needed to obtain them, and he wished to suggest that the Committee which was now considering the functions of the Local Government Board in connection with those of the Home Office should consider this matter, and that they should also have the promise from the Home Office of a joint circular to authorities and a joint Return. Among other matters which they required were a complete Return of sanitary inspectors or inspectors of nuisances, particularly women inspectors, appointed by local authorities, but doing Home Office work. For example, in connection with the Factory Inspectors in workshops and the homes of the outworkers; in shop hours, under Provand's Acts; in seats for shop assistants under the Shops Seats Act, and so forth. Now, even the Local Government Board only knew of those women inpectors of nuisances, doing work under the Factories and Workshops Act, who were "appointed with the Board's sanction." He pressed, then, for the consideration of this matter by the Departmental Committee and the preparation of a common Return by the Departments concerned which will give later and full information to the House. He would move his Amendment, but, as far as he was concerned, he did not wish this year to make any special complaint against the Home Office, and the question whether the Committee would be asked to divide or not would depend on the case which would be submitted by his hon. friend.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
    MR. COGHILLsaid it was exceedingly inconvenient that there should have been a discussion that day on a subject which would be arbitrated on next Tuesday. The arbitration was held eighteen months ago by Lord James, who adjourned it for eighteen months; and his decision was announced for Tuesday next. He was, therefore,
    566
    surprised that the question should be re-opened now. Where was the necessity? The Home Office brought forward a case which completely broke down; and now it was to be re-opened. He did not wish to blame the Home Office in any way except in regard to this particular question of lead. This discussion was altogether premature. The Report for 1902 stated that the full effect of the rules could not yet be ascertained, as they were still in an experimental stage with reference to many points. Under those circumstances he did not see that any useful purpose would be served by having another discussion this afternoon. The right hon. Baronet had said that the figures were inconsistent, and that this improvement that was shown in the Report was not shown in his figures. But they were told that a new moistening process was being prepared, and therefore it would be better to defer the discussion to some future time. Everybody would admit that the figures showed there had been a most decided improvement in late years, and that lead poisoning had greatly decreased. They could not expect that it would decrease much lower. Between 47,000 and 50,000 persons were employed in the potteries, and whilst in 1901 there were 106 cases of lead poisoning, last year there were only 87. That was a most gratifying decrease, and the comparison of the first five months of last year with the first five months of this showed that that improvement was steadily increasing, and that there was no reason whatever to complain. There were many other dangerous trades in which lead poisoning occurred, and it certainly seemed to him rather hard that the potteries should always be singled out for the purpose of attacking the Home Office. One great complaint with regard to the arbitration before Lord James of Hereford, being resumed next week, was that the Home Office, by the rules of 1902, for the first time had attempted to dictate to the manufacturers as to the materials they were to use. That was a great departure from the rules of the Home Office, but the manufacturers would agree if Dr. Thorpe could give them a formula which in his view they might accept. But though they had asked for such a

    567
    formula they had not succeeded in getting it, because it was not yet discovered.
    The manufacturers had done their best to meet the Home Office; they had spent thousands of pounds in the endeavour to discover a leadless glaze, and in trying fritted lead, and yet they had failed to discover any glaze to suit the Home Office. If any success was to be achieved in getting rid of lead poisoning it must be by the co-operation of the workers themselves. A great deal depended on the habits of those who worked among the lead. Those who were intemperate or dirty in their personal habits, and who neglected to wash their hands before eating, were more liable to lead-poisoning than those who were clean and temperate in their habits. They could legislate for the worker so long as he was within the walls of a factory, but they could not carry out legislation over him in his own home. It all depended on the workers themselves. He did not think the manufacturers had received sufficient recognition for what they had done. They had made, great efforts, but it must be remembered that they carried on their business not for philanthropic purposes, but for commercial purposes, and if they were handicapped in this way it would be impossible for them to carry on their trade. If the result of the arbitration was adverse to the manufacturers, and the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon their using the minimum of lead suggested by the Home Office experts, they would close their works, because they could not carry on their trade under such impossible conditions. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to follow out the policy of his predecessor, which would only have the effect of playing into the hands of Germany, but if he did, in the coming general election the people of Staffordshire would do their best to remove from office a Government which had sought to cripple and destroy and to drive out of this country one of the finest and most useful and interesting of our great national industries.
    *MR. SHACKLETONsaid the matter to which
    568
    he desired to call attention was of a technical character, and required some explanation. It was the operation of the cotton cloths law under the Factories Acts. As a result of a strong agitation at Blackburn, an Act was passed in 1889 for the proper ventilation of the cotton cloth steaming sheds, but the workpeople were not satisfied, and a strong effort was made by them to abolish the entire system. They wished to act in a manner which would least injure trade, and least harass the employers, and a meeting was held in London between employers and employees, the result of which was a suggestion on the part of the employers that an inquiry should be made by the Home Office into the working of the Steaming Act, as it was called, and its effect on the health of the operatives. That inquiry took place. After considering the evidence the Committee made certain recommendations, including the suggestion of a limit of 9 volumes of carbon dioxide in every 10,000 volumes of air, this would secure an amount of ventilation corresponding to about 2,000 cubic feet of fresh air per head per hour, and they expressed the belief that such a requirement would bring about a material improvement in the health and comfort of the workers, without imposing any serious burden upon the trade, or asking for more than was already voluntarily done in well-regulated sheds. As the legal limit was only 600 cubic feet, it could not be denied that the operatives had good ground for complaining that it was considerably under the proper standard from a health point of view. In 1897 an Act was passed empowering the Home Secretary to embody the recommendations of the Committee in the form of an Order, and in 1898 that was done. Knowing that the Order would involve considerable alterations in many of the sheds, and being naturally anxious not to cause disturbance, the operatives' representatives gave time for these changes to be carried out. For more than two years they said little or nothing about the matter, but in 1900 they thought the time had come when a determined effort should be made to bring about the alterations, and they communicated

    569
    with the Home Office. The employers at once waited upon Sir Kenelm Digby, asking that the Order should be so far varied as to allow the carbon dioxide admitted into the sheds to be five over the outside air. The operatives' representatives, having considered the matter, also visited the Home Office, and, while asking for the Order to be carried out, accepted this modification, which they found could be allowed without serious risk to the operatives. It was hoped that after all these delays something would be done. He admitted that something had been done, but the Order had not been enforced in the manner they had a right to expect. The laxity of the administration was evidenced by the fact that during 1900, the number of inspectors specially appointed to deal with this matter was reduced from three to one, and, according to the Inspector's Report—
    "The Inspectors in charge of the district were, for the first time since the passing of the original Act of 1889, called upon to assist in the enforcement of the enactment."
    The only way in which the general inspector could assist was in checking the entries of the employers on a particular day; he had no practical knowledge of the subject from a scientific point of view; he took no tests, and did nothing in the way of a scientific examination of the conditions of the place. The number of factories and so forth under supervision had increased from 600 to 1,597, in addition to which there were a number of rooms in flax mills subject to inspection. He held, therefore, that if it took three men to do the work connected with the smaller number of mills, it certainly required more than one man to see that the Act was faithfully carried out in the larger number. Another of the provisions of the Act was all in favour of the employers. By Section 95 of the Factories and Workshops Act, 1901, it was laid down that no prosecution could follow an offence unless a second offence was committed within twelve months. As these 1,597 places were spread all over the country, it was extremely difficult to detect an employer in a second offence, and it would have been thought that when such detection was made a prosecution would follow. But what were the facts?
    570
    In February last, in reply to a Question, the Home Secretary stated that in 1902 there were sixty-two cases reported in which employers had exceeded the standard, but that the excess in many cases was in only one part of the shed. The law, however, made no exemption in such cases, but declared that an excess in any part of the shed constituted an offence. As to the suggestion that the law should be altered in that respect, he would only say that when such alteration is proposed the operatives' representatives will offer it their strongest opposition, being convinced that if the average of the shed was permitted to be taken it would entail serious consequences in many weaving sheds. He knew scores of places in which one part of the shed would be fairly healthy and agreeable, while another part was absolutely intolerable. In reply to a subsequent Question, the right hon. Gentleman stated that in sixteen of the cases the employers had been warned in the course of the preceding twelve months. Why were prosecutions not instituted in those sixteen cases? There ought not to be the slightest hesitation in instituting prosecutions on the part of a, Department having charge of a matter so seriously affecting the life and comfort of the operatives. He held that the Home Office had neglected its duty. Why had there been no prosecutions for more than eighteen months? Had instructions been given to the inspectors not to prosecute? Was there any understanding in the Department that this Act should not be enforced? Why were the employers in this of all the departments of the cotton trade permitted to please themselves? The patience of the operatives was almost exhausted. They had never yet agreed to this Act, the only Resolution they had passed having been in favour of the total abolition of the system, and he assured the right hon. Gentleman that unless the Act was enforced in a straightforward manner it would be very difficult to induce the people to give the measure a fair trial. After all the concessions they had made, he thought they were entitled to expect the earnest assistance of the Home Office. He should be glad to hear from the Home Secretary that this Act would be given a

    571
    proper and a fair chance. He could not conceive why these prosecutions had not taken place. The cases he had mentioned had been tried before magistrates who were employers and had a direct interest in this matter, but it the Act which had been carried through the House of Commons was to be set at naught by the magistrates he did not know what position the workers would have to take up. They had their own remedy, and that was to refuse to work under those conditions. The only other alternative was that the Act should be put in force and made to do the work it was intended to do.
    *MR. TENNANTsaid as a rule the case of the potters was put before the House by his hon. friend the Member for Stoke, who, though he had made his usual speech, seemed to have omitted to tell them upon this occasion that the more lead they used in the trade the better. By that omission he had deprived him, he was almost going to say defrauded him, of one of his best arguments. His hon. friend had stated that it came as a surprise to him and his friends that Lord James was about to continue the arbitration upon this question. Why should he be surprised, for it had been repeatedly said that the inquiry had only been adjourned. The inquiry was adjourned simply to see how the rules worked and how the operatives were affected. Surely that was not an unreasonable course to adopt. The hon. Member went on to say that this was a premature discussion of this subject. Personally, he should have been better pleased if this discussion had taken place a week after instead of a week before the arbitration. But that was not his fault. The hon. Member for Stoke had also said that the wet processes were thoroughly innocuous.
    MR. COGHILL: I said they were less dangerous than the dusty and dry processes.
    *MR. TENNANTsaid that was common ground. The rules had to be very stringent in the dry processes, but it had been shown that injurious results were produced from the sludge of wet lead running through the troughs. The hon. Member for Stoke went on to say that
    572
    this was the first occasion when the Home Office had attempted to dictate to manufacturers what materials they should use. He believed that the year 1901 was the first occasion when Parliament decided to impose special regulations upon manufacturers as to the use of certain articles. He thought the Home Secretary would confirm that statement. The hon. Member went on to say that when the manufacturers applied for a formula from which a glaze might be made which would be innocuous the Home Office said they could not give it. That was not in accordance with his information or recollection. It was some time since the Report of Dr. Oliver and Dr. Thorpe was issued, but his recollection was that there was in the appendix to that Report a formula given by those two scientists derived from in formation from a great Swedish manufacturer who had employed lead in his glaze in sufficiently large quantities to make it a commercial success with almost complete harmlessness to the operatives engaged.
    MR. COGHILLsaid that the manufacturers in his constituency had not found it possible to use such a glaze to advantage commercially. If the hon. Member knew of such a formula he should be pleased to know what it was.
    *MR. TENNANTsaid he could not give him the formula, but he would look through the Report and see if it existed there. The hon. Member for Stoke said that manufacturers had not found it possible to use such a glaze with commercial advantage. Manufacturers had got the chance of making a glaze without lead. Would the hon. Member state that that was impossible? The other day at a meeting in connection with a hospital with which he was connected they were discussing the purchase of earthenware materials, and he suggested that they should be of leadless glaze, and the Committee at once asked the question: "Can you get them as cheap as the other sort?" He obtained prices for them, and later on to his astonishment the Secretary to the hospital informed him that he had bought the articles cheaper in leadless glaze. That showed that the example set by the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the

    573
    public Departments had been a good one, and had resulted in this remarkable circumstance, that in the open market they were able to purchase leadless glaze cheaper than lead glazed goods. He had himself a dessert service made with leadless glaze, and both for cheapness and quality it was as good as those made with the use of lead. The hon Member for Stoke said that they were always going to Germany for information. With the prospect of dearer food and dearer raw materials before them the bowels of his compassion yearned towards the manufacturers not only of pottery but of everything else, and if he felt that these rules were likely to prevent them carrying on successfully their industry at a profit, and would have the effect of closing up their works, he should not have another word to say upon the subject. They ought not to sacrifice the supremacy of their commerce, but at the same time they must not wholly ignore the safety of the worker. He did not think he needed to say anything more about the potters. He desired to congratulate the Home Secretary upon the most admirable Report which he had placed before the House. He had a good many questions to ask which he was afraid were rather technical. He wished to refer to two matters which related more to the future, and were really not so germane to this discussion, namely, reporting of accidents and ventilation. On both these subjects the right hon. Gentleman had received Reports from Departmental Committees. He asked what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do in regard to these matters. He would content himself by remarking how deplorable it would be if he were to accept the invitation which was made in the Report of the Departmental Committee on ventilation and take a retrograde step.
    An important matter mentioned in the Report at page 29 related to small laundries. This question had been brought before the notice of the Home Secretary in the past as often as they got the opportunity of doing so. On this matter Mr. Edward, Southampton, said—
    "In all the twenty-two cases where hand laundries have been crossed off the register it has been because the occupiers have reduced
    574
    their outside hands to two so as to be outside the provisions of the Act."
    This was the only trade in the country which was exempted from the Factory Acts owing to its dimensions. It was most ridiculous, and really iniquitous, that by dismissing all employees except two the people who kept these small laundries should be able to compete against the other laundries where the restrictions imposed by the Acts were complied with. Was it not as necessary to protect the two workers as twenty or thirty? Another matter which he would mention in passing was that relating to precautions against fire. He could not go into that question because it involved legislation, but he wished to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the following observations by Mr. Younger at page 23 of the Report—
    "The chief difficulty at present is the treatment of dangerous factories and workshops in which fewer than forty hands are employed. In some cases the number of hands is deliberately kept just below forty as an alternative to the provision of a second exit; this practice involves the absurd assumption that a building which is dangerous for the employment of forty persons is safe for thirty-nine."
    He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give attention to that point. At the inquest which took place after the fire at Stockport Cotton Mills Sir Charles Firth, of the Fire Brigades Association, said—
    "He had no hesitation in saying that one-half of the mills in the country were worse off than the Vernon mills were in respect of fire equipment."
    That was a very strong statement, and one which ought really to sink deep into the minds of those responsible for the safety and welfare of persons employed in factories and workshops. These were matters on which he could not enter very minutely.
    He would now turn to other questions with which he was personally acquainted. They were technical, but they were subjects into which the Committee, over which he presided, were directed to inquire in 1895. In regard to dry cleaning, Mr. Rogers, Derby, stated in his Report, which appeared at page 61 of the Blue-book—
    "One fire occurred at a dry cleaning works in the daytime. A woman was lifting a metal vessel containing garments

    575
    soaked with benzine from the floor, when, from some unknown cause, flames appeared underneath the vessel, and, rapidly spreading, the fire burned out the interior of the room before it could be extinguished by the excellent local arrangements of the factory. A notable point in this case is that two vessels of benzine, simply covered with loose lids, were in the room, and though they were enveloped in flame for several minutes the spirit did not take fire. This shows the advisability of providing lids for machines and vessels containing benzine, as recommended by the Dangerous Trades Committee some years ago."
    The Committee reported on that subject in 1897 and 1898, and, so far as he was informed, nothing had been done beyond making inquiry in regard to the dangerous trades with which he was dealing. He admitted there had been inquiry, but that was not sufficient. Something Should be done beyond mere inquiry. He called attention to the following passage in Mr. Hilditch's Report in regard to basic slag—
    "There is still a tendency to improvement in the matter of allaying the dust at basic slag works, and it is gratifying to report that, although excellent results have been obtained compared with the old order of things, the firm is still giving the matter attention. It is encouraged in this by the great saving of valuable dust which was at one time dissipated through the air."
    He must say that it did strike him as an extraordinary thing that here where the Home Office had practically an invitation from the firms engaged to issue regulations, nothing had yet been done. He called attention to the enormous number of accidents resulting from the use of locomotives in factories. It would be seen from the statements made at page 82 of the Report that—
    "Twelve out of forty-nine inquests attended by one inspector during the past year were in connection with deaths of persons caused by moving locomotives or trucks on private rails."
    The inspector for the Midland Division said at page 63 of the Report—
    "Year by year the observance of the Special Rules becomes more noticeable and the difficulties of administration diminish. Employers and employed alike have begun to recognise the justice and necessity of their enactment and the benefits to be derived from compliance."
    Though inspectors and employers said these things the only people who took no action, so far as he understood, were the Home Office authorities. He had the pleasing duty of being able to congratulate the Home Secretary on the
    576
    appointment of a new electrical inspector Six years ago the Committee to which he had alluded made a Report on electrical generating stations. The gentleman appointed by the Home Office reported that last year there had been ten fatal accidents and 126 non-fatal accidents in electrical generating stations. Ten fatal accidents seemed to him a very considerable number, the Inspector added—
    "The notices of accidents received during the year in respect of electrical stations do not, I have reason to believe, represent by any means all the cases which should have been reported, managers of some stations having expressed their ignorance of this requirement of the Act."
    Therefore ten might not represent the whole of the accidents that resulted fatally, and in all probability 126 did not represent anything like the number of nonfatal accidents. He drew attention to the following paradox brought out in the Report—
    "The greater number of the accidents happened to persons when working on 'live' switchboards or conductors, mostly at low pressure, short circuits occurring and resulting in severe burns, in one case terminating fatally."
    He would now pass to what the Inspector said about transformer stations. He remembered being asked in this-House by the hon. Member for North Louth why they wanted to claim certain powers during the passing of the Factories Bill dealing with transformer stations. He informed the hon. Member at that time that it was because they were extraordinarily dangerous places. They had it stated in the Report that they were almost more dangerous than the larger generating stations. That entirely bore out his old contention that the transforming stations were as dangerous as, if not more dangerous, than the generating stations. The Inspector said that—
    "The larger number of the electrical accidents were of a preventable nature, and, in some cases, gross negligence was evident in that totally unskilled and ignorant persons were put to work upon or amongst 'live' conductors, whilst in other cases obvious and elementary precautions were neglected."
    He had always maintained that nearly all these cases of accident could be prevented if the Home Office would only enforce the powers at their disposal. Nearly all these points had been brought before the Committee over which he presided six

    577
    years ago, but nothing had been done. Might he read one other statement, in regard to electrical works? The Inspector said that—
    "The space behind switchboards is also in some instances so broken up and obstructed by cables, resistance frames, etc., as to render the application of sand, in the event of fire, almost impossible, whilst in others it offers a dangerous trap in case of accident necessitating a hurried exit."
    One thing on which the Committee laid stress in their Report was that there should be more space behind these switchboards, and they drew up a draft regulation to that effect. He would read a final extract from this Electrical Inspector's Report—
    "Two fatalities have recently occurred from shock 'to earth' on a 250 volt two-phase system, in one of which the victim was proved to have been quite sound, and was killed when accidentally touching a charged conductor with the little linger of his left hand."
    He would earnestly suggest that where they were dealing with electrical force of such extraordinary danger, which worked silently, suddenly and relentlessly, there was a corresponding duty lying on those whose prerogative it was to protect the workers of the country to employ every means in their power to discharge that duty efficiently.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid they all admired the many qualities of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and sympathised with them in their efforts to improve the condition of the workers of the country; but he thought there was no necessity for the attacks which had been made on the Home Office for not putting their regulations into force. The Home Office, it should be remembered, might, in trying to improve the condition of the workers in certain trades, improve these trades out of existence altogether. He should like to look at the position of trades in this country, and to consider whether or not certain of them were not inspected enough; whether, at any rate, the interference of the Home Office would not carry away the very slight margin that was left to them of profit. He wished the right hon. Gentleman in making his statement had given par
    578
    ticulars. His meaning was that in the application of certain rules and regulations, however admirable, to certain trades, there was a danger of carrying them to such an extent that they became unworkable and ridiculous.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that he alluded to the smaller hardware trades, especially to the manufacture of pins and buttons.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that if people would only spend a few days at Birmingham they would see that the inspectors did their duty, as far as possible, to such trades as had been mentioned. The criticisms made showed that regulations which were good in themselves as applied to certain trades, were worthless when applied to other trades. He did not understand what his right hon. friend meant when he spoke about sanitation of small domestic workshops. Did he mean that the sanitation of Birmingham, which was the home of these small industries, was defective? In passing, he might remark that these small industries were most valuable. They formed, he would not say a middle class, but a lower middle class of people who were their own masters, which was a great thing for those who were working on their own account; and although their condition and gains were not altogether what he would like, yet to destroy that class would be regarded as an infinite injury. There was a great desire on the part of a large section of persons to shut up all small workshops, and by means of rules and regulations to force the workers into the large factories. If ever that came about it would, in his opinion, be a great misfortune. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman, he wanted to have the sanitary matters of these small workshops — these domestic houses where work was carried on—placed under factory inspectors.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not go into any question of legislation, for that would be outside this discussion. He said that the great municipalities were doing their work well; and so far as Birmingham was concerned he had no cause of complaint. But some of the

    579
    smaller municipalities were apt to wait for the Home Office to call their attention to sanitary defects.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he was bound to say that he was surprised to hear the frequency of the expressions of distrust of the local authorities. They must either be trusted, or an inspector should be sent down from the central authority.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that what he had stated was that in many cases both the factory inspector and the local sanitary inspector were already sent.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSthought that that was an error, if over it did exist. He was not aware that under the present regulations a factory inspector could go and do the work of a local sanitary inspector. If so, it was a great mistake, in his opinion. The right hon. Gentleman said very truly that in Committee on the Estimates they were confined to criticism of the administration of the existing law. He wished that all the factory inspectors, particularly the women, would confine their work to the administration of the existing law. He had complained for years past, he complained now, that a good portion of their time and energy was taken up in dealing with matters which were outside the administration of the existing law, and that there was inadequate time left for their regular work, while demands were made for more inspectors. We should soon be becoming the most heavily inspected nation in the world. He was bound to say, on reading these Reports, that they appeared to him, though nominally addressed to the Home Office, to be really addressed to the public outside. There was a good deal of sensational matter in them; many of the statements were greatly exaggerated; isolated cases were given leaving the impression that that was the general state of things; and altogether they formed an ex parte statement. He found that the brush trade was now being attacked. And here he might remark that in this last Report there was a minute, technical account of the manufacture of brushes in Germany which was very interesting, but he did not think that
    580
    a factory inspector need have given that information in carrying out the administration of the law. It was outside his province. Brushmaking as a home industry was outside the supervision of the inspectors at present, and yet it was mentioned in this Report that the inspectors had visited some hundreds of homes where these brushes were made. Why did they want to interfere with the homes of the people who were trying to get an honest living? And why should they introduce in their Reports these remarks to get some restrictions placed upon them? Then there was an extract from Mr. Sidney Webb's book, very interesting, but quite outside, in his opinion, the province of inspectors who were paid to discharge certain definite duties. There were also statements with reference to brushmaking which, he was afraid, was carried on under very bad conditions in Germany, and in a manner which had squeezed out of existence all the lower forms of brushmaking in this country. He did not see that that was a very good argument in favour of preferential tariffs. He was not advancing the argument himself—he was only quoting; but that trade, which could only be carried on with the utmost care and application., and with hardly a living margin in this country, was now to be interfered with. In his opinion the Report should be presented to the Home Secretary as a private document; and the inspectors would be better advised to confine their zeal to the work entrusted to them.
    The right hon. Gentleman alluded to laundries, and said that small laundries which only employed two persons, apart from members of the family, should be protected. That meant that such laundries should be brought tinder the Workshops Act, and that would mean that every one of those small home industries—almost the only home industry that was left—would be squeezed out of existence. They should look at the question, not from the point of view of everything that might be ideal, but in connection with the poverty of the people who were trying to get their living, under circumstances and conditions which the House of Commons would like to see improved, but which it would be cruelty to deprive them of altogether. He was aware that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean and his

    581
    friends had set their minds on bringing those small laundries under protection, which would amount to ending their existence. The women inspectors of the Home Office had made up their minds to the same effect. The right hon. Baronet and his friends had great influence with the Home Office. He had heard them described collectively as an outside branch of the Factory Department of the Home Office. Their aim was to close every one of those small laundries, and it was supported, in his opinion, in the Report in a manner which was unfair. There was a long quotation about a small laundry carried on by some Italians, who had evaded the law by employing persons under the pretence that they were members of the family. Probably that was true; but he had tried to get the addresses of some of those terrible cases, and he had not been able to obtain them.
    *MR. TENNANTsaid he would give the right hon. Gentleman one.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he should like to get the addresses from those who wrote the Report. He did not say the cases were incorrect, but he said that they were isolated and rare, and to found general legislation on exceptional cases was always a mistake. Then it was said in the Report in regard to these domestic laundries—
    "It is difficult not to be struck by the discomfort and wretchedness of these homes when turned into unregulated workshops."
    They were considering the cases of tens and hundreds of thousands of women who were really not laundresses at all, but washerwomen who at the present time got a humble living. In every part of the country they would find that the one successful, though humble, home industry was carried on by women who took in washing. That was what right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to destroy. It was the merest quibble to say that they did not want to destroy them, when they proposed to bring them under the Workshops Act. There were steam laundries now within reach of almost every village in the country, and if the home industry was extinguished the work would be sent to the steam laundries. When the Factories and Workshops Bill was before
    582
    the House, there was an attempt to bring those small industries within its scope, and he received scores of letters from clergymen and others, praying that they should not be interfered with. Again he would say it was unfair to quote exceptional cases, and then suggest that, in order to rectify them, all the thousands of the poorer industrial classes should be interfered with. He hoped there would be an improvement in future Reports as far as sensational statements were concerned, and that the inspectors would report only on the work entrusted to them, and not on missionary work which should be left to those to whom it properly belonged. It was very interesting and very clever, but its proper place was not in the Report. He hoped the Home Office would bear in mind that, after all, it was a poor result to improve the conditions of trade, if, at the same time, it meant squeezing trades on which poor people were engaged out of existence. If they looked round they would see at the bottom of the social system of the country a condition of poverty that some of them did not perhaps fully realise. If they found people struggling to get a living, let them not adopt means which might be good if applied where they could be applied, but which would take away the means of earning a living from those people. He particularly referred to laundries, and to the hundreds of thousands of people who earned a humble living by them at the present time. That industry, if the Workshops Act regulations were applied, would no longer be able to continue.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid he was at one moment afraid that his right hon. friend who had just sat down was going to succumb to the influences so prevalent in the atmosphere just now, which seemed to lure every speaker, whatever might be ostensibly the subject of debate, in the direction of preferential tariffs.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSdissented.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid his right hon. friend had seemed to be on the verge, at any rate, of succumbing to that temptation, and, warned by his example, he

    583
    would endeavour to give a clear berth to that particular topic. His right hon. friend took an interest in the welfare of these small industries. He entirely shared with him the view that it was most undesirable, either by legislation or administration, to do anything to curtail the sphere or diminish the prosperity of those industries. But his right hon. friend's imagination in these matters was, if not exclusively occupied, dominated by the figure of the poor woman who took in washing. After all, no one wanted to put any unreasonable obstacles in her way, but there were a number of these small industries in regard to which investigation had shown there were ample reasons why the persons engaged in them should be protected against vital danger as regarded sanitary condition, hours of labour, and the general terms of their employment. Allusion had been made to brush-making, and there seemed to be an impression that an unwarrantable intrusion had been made into that trade. But what was the reason for that intrusion? It was because it was in relation to this trade that the terrible disease of anthrax became more and more prevalent and dangerous, particularly where the work was carried on by out-workers. Could anyone say that was not a matter for investigation? When his right hon. friend compared our brush industry with that of Germany, and stated that one of the effects of this legislation was that in some of the lower branches of the brush industry it enabled German manufacturers to successfully compete with the British manufacturers, was the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Germany these very processes were safeguarded by stringent rules with regard to disinfection such as did not exist in this country? He thought we might legitimately take a leaf out of Germany's book in this matter.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he had no objection to inquiry into brush-making or anything else—into any other industry; but let that inquiry be conducted under the authority of the Home Office under proper instructions. What he objected to was that inspectors who complained that they had not time to do their administrative work, went of their own
    584
    accord into a trade, making inquiries and publishing a Report. It was not their business to do so unless they had instructions to do so.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid he did not feel much wiser after the right hon. Gentleman's explanation than he did when he resumed his seat. Who would be more qualified to make inquiries than the inspectors who existed for that purpose. The inspectors of the Home Office were well qualified to make inquiries, and there could be no reasonable objection to the result of those inquiries being embodied in a Report to the Department. The principles of factory legislation were now practically settled, and there was continuity of administration. This, of course, made the annual debate turn more and more upon matters of detail, and it was useful as indicating directions in which settled rules should be extended in application. He was strongly of opinion that whenever it was shown, after due inquiry, that the conditions of particular trades were insanitary or dangerous, whether carried on in factories or outside, and that there was a risk of workers losing their proper measure of remuneration, it was not only the right, but the duty of the State, in compliance with uniform tradition, to take effectual means to safeguard the workers. There was nothing dangerously socialistic in that principle—there was abundant evidence for it in the policy which had been carried on by this country for many years. He was not one of those who believed that British industries were handicapped in their struggle for existence by extension of the regulations. It was a position, however, which though not often enunciated in this House was often put forward outside, and he challenged evidence in support of it. The more matters were investigated—if they were to form part of the comprehensive inquiry into things in general—the more it would be shown that British trade had been emancipated and improved; and the fact, that workers who fifty or sixty years ago owing to insanitary conditions carried on their work with shortened lives and impaired energies, now, by wise legislation and careful administration, were safeguarded and carried on their occupations under healthy conditions

    585
    which they had not previously enjoyed, would form a great commercial asset for Great Britain in the struggle with other nations. His hon. friend the Member for Berwick had alluded, not for the first time by many, to the fact that the Report of the Committee on Dangerous Trades had in some points not been acted upon by the Home Office; he knew from experience the difficulty of framing special rules for particular industries, but he impressed on his right hon. friend the urgency of dealing with trades where avoidable dangers to life and health existed. He was not at all satisfied with the progress that had been made in this matter, and he hoped an assurance would be given by his right hon. friend that further steps would be taken. For many years the hon. Member for Stoke had taken part in the debates on lead poisoning with credit and versatility, shifting his ground with admirable perception of the line it would be in the interest of his clients to take. He did not, however, understand the line the hon. Member had taken on this occasion. Some years ago the late Home Secretary promulgated a movement which resulted in an arbitration, conducted by Lord James of Hereford, who adjourned the hearing for eighteen months. That period had elapsed, and the hon. Member was surprised that proceedings should be resumed; he thought, perhaps, that proceedings which were adjourned for eighteen months were postponed sine die or to the Greek Kalends! Why did he think the inquiry was adjourned?
    MR. COGHILL: To let the Home Office off as lightly as possible.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid this was ingenious, but not complimentary from a supporter of the Government. He gave Lord James credit for a large intention. He thought he adjourned the inquiry to allow those concerned the opportunity of reaching a state of things in which special rules or legislation would not be required, and it was reasonable that, a sufficient time having elapsed, Lord James should desire to know what had been done. He would make one other remark. Ten years experience of the experiment of appointing women inspec
    586
    tors for trades where women and young persons were employed justified an extension of the practice. The communications between the women operatives and these inspectors had been much more free than they would have been if these women inspectors had not been appointed, and the result had been a much better administration of the law. He desired to see the women inspectorate still further extended. It had been productive of incalculable benefit to a large class of operatives in the country, and he did not in the least share the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division that women inspectors had gone out of their way to publish to the world ex parte and sensational statements in reference to certain trades.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I did not say that.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman certainly suggested it, otherwise he could not understand the purport of his remarks. At any rate, he declared that they had gone beyond the duties of their office, and devoted to the preparation of Reports time which might have been more usefully employed in the routine work of the Department. He did not at all agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It was one of the duties, as it had been the practice, of inspectors, no matter with what Department they were connected, not to confine themselves to the mere routine of their daily work, but, as intelligent observers, to send to their official chief, in the form of Reports, such observations as they might be able to make with regard to the condition of the particular form of activity with which they were charged, whether social, educational, or industrial, adding suggestions for the improvement or removal of such evils as were brought to their notice. He would be sorry for it to be suggested that inspectors were going beyond their proper sphere in reporting to their chief, and through him to the Secretary of State, the existence of evils, their magnitude, and suggestions for their remedy. By making such Reports they were performing a most useful function, and he earnestly hoped the Home Secretary would not give any countenance to the discouraging remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the

    587
    Member for the Bordesley Division. On the whole he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the progress of the Department and the excellent work it had done, and he hoped he would be able to reassure the Committee on the special points of detail to which reference had been made.
    *MR. TALBOTwas understood to say that the greatest credit was due to the women inspectors for the excellent work they had done, especially when it was remembered that some of them received remuneration which hardly came within the description of a "living wage." He entirely disagreed with the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division on the question of the inspection of laundries. It was unreasonable to suggest that small laundries would be squeezed out of existence if they were compelled to conduct their industry in a proper and sanitary manner. All small laundries would be, or ought to be, glad to comply with the reasonable requirements of the Home Office.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: They cannot afford it.
    *MR. TALBOTbelieved they could afford it. If they could not, they ought to be closed, as no industry ought to be conducted at the expense of the health of the community. On the larger question of the inspection of laundries generally, the Committee would remember a remarkable scene which occurred two years ago on the last stage of the Factories and Workshops Regulation Bill, when the Home Office surrendered the position they had taken up, and declared that they could not carry the measure if they insisted on the inspection of laundries. The then Home Secretary practically promised to deal with the question in a very short time, but that promise had not yet been redeemed. He therefore desired to ask the Home Secretary whether he was prepared, and if so when, to deal with this question. It was a matter of considerable difficulty, and one which raised serious considerations in the minds of those connected with certain charitable institutions. It was only right to say, however, that recent revelations as to what had happened in another country had given rise to some alarm lest there
    588
    should be in this country, unknown to the public, scandals of a similar nature, and it would tend to relieve the public mind if the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the subject would be dealt with within a reasonable time. The fact that it presented difficulties was no reason why the subject should be neglected, especially when it affected the welfare of a specially helpless part of the community. With reference to the fruit preserving industry, he thought the law was hardly sufficiently stringent for the protection of the health of the youngest class of workers. That, however, was a matter for legislation, and could not be discussed on the Estimates. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Reports he had received led him to the conclusion that the existing law was really carried out. He believed that in some places there existed a condition of things which ought never to be tolerated—fruit preserving being carried on under in sanitary conditions not only prejudicial to the health of the workers, but causing a danger to the preserved fruit which might be described as disgusting. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give this matter his attention.
    MR. BRIGGdesired to refer to the remarkable but reasonable complaint of the hon. Member for the Clitheroe Division with reference to the cotton steaming mills. The hon. Member had approached the matter from the workers' point of view; he (the speaker) could look at the matter from the opposite point of view, because, although not actually an employer of cotton labour, he had been part holder, and had had under his control the management of factory sheds of the kind described by the hon. Member, The ground of complaint was that the Home Office had not been sufficiently active in enforcing the regulations, and that the inspectors had not done all they might and ought to have done. There were two very good reasons, and in giving those reasons, he might be able to make some useful suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman. Many Members were probably not familiar with the object of steaming cotton. The fact was that it was necessary to put a large quantity of steam into these sheds while the goods were

    589
    being produced in order to help the weaving and the laying down of the fibre, and at the same time to get a certain amount of moisture into the cloth, that being extremely valuable to the manufacturer. It was much better for the manufacturer if the goods could be turned out in a damp condition than if they were turned out dry. Under those circumstances, when a man had a direct interest in keeping the place moist, it was difficult to keep him on the right line. It was exceedingly difficult to detect what the inspectors were expected to discover. Hon. Members knew that the small fractions of impurity which were said to exist in the sheds were exceedingly difficult to arrive at. The hon. Member for Clitheroe had been asking for a more efficient inspection and a more careful consideration of the conditions under which the cotton industry was now carried on. Unless the punishment was very severe manufacturers would continue to ignore the law. He knew some of the difficulties with which owners had to contend, because many of the alterations were difficult to carry out, and very expensive, but he was quite convinced that there was no reason whatever to consider that the regulations laid down in regard to steaming in cotton sheds were unreasonable, and there was no reason why the Home Office should not use more energy in having the Act carried out.
    *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University disputed that these regulations would squeeze the small laundries out of existence. Take the case of a widow with a couple of daughters calling in two or three outside assistants to carry on washerwomen's work. She would probably occupy premises of a humble nature, and perhaps carry on the washing business in an old coach-house. If they applied factory regulations in this case, as to sanitation and other matters, they would squeeze her business out of existence, because she probably would have no money to carry out the alterations required. The cost would fall upon the owner of the property, and the result would be that owners would bar washerwomen from occu
    590
    pying their premises. He agreed with his right hon. friend the Member for Bordesley with regard to what he said about the extinction of these independent workers. He desired to thank the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean for kindly giving him notice of his intention to bring the subject of fish-curing at Yarmouth before the Committee. He regretted that, owing to his public duties calling him elsewhere, he was unable to be present and listen to the right hon. Baronet's remarks upon the Inspector's Report. There were peculiar circumstances connected with the industry at Great Yarmouth which rendered it very difficult to meet the points which had been brought forward. In the first place, it had to be remembered that fish-curing was not pleasant work under any circumstances. The fish had to be cleaned and gutted, and that was not agreeable work in any sense of the word. He would not dispute the fact that, although the work might be disagreeable, everything reasonable should be done in the direction, not of making it less disagreeable, but of making it as sanitary in its operation as possible. The Report said that a large number of women were carrying on the work under disgusting circumstances, and it went on to speak of mud, filth, rain, storms, and of the work being carried on in the open air. No Home Office could control rain or wind, but what could the Home Office do to mitigate the unpleasant results referred to in the Memorandum? He did not think they could do very much in this instance. In the first place, the area of the ground upon which this work must be carried on at Yarmouth was very, very restricted. What was described as the South Denes where the work was carried on in the open air, was but a very few acres. It could not be carried on at a very great distance from the landing-place because of the additional cost that would be added to the curing by the carriage. The congestion, consequently, must be nearest to the river. The ground could not be extended. They could not limit the number of fish to be treated, nor could they delay the process. However willing the private owners and the Corporation might be, they were met

    591
    with the greatest possible difficulty, and he did not think the case admitted of very much remedy. If his right hon. friend suggested that the work should be done under sheds, he would point out that that might inflict considerable outlay by a number of people concerned. In pointing out that women worked in mud and slush, and in storms of wind and rain, the inspector mentioned that a few loads of stones might mitigate the evil. Knowing the operations of fish-curing, and the conditions under which they had to be carried on, he doubted very much whether the inspector was right. It would not do to put down rough stones, because the women would cut their feet, and they would interfere with the work of cleaning, because the stones would have to be constantly removed and fresh stones substituted.
    The inspector was actuated by the best intentions, and was a very able man. He was, doubtless, extremely anxious to see some mitigation of the evil, but he did not think a remedy would be found in putting down rough stones which must in course of time become insanitary, and could not be changed while pressure of work was on. He could not help thinking that if this inspector had a more varied experience of the fish-curing process, and went up and down the coast, he would not have expressed himself so strongly. It was useless to use strong words without suggesting a remedy for the evil. The fish-curing was different from every other industry, and he would again ask the Home Secretary to consider whether it would not be desirable to employ one inspector to look after it and to travel after the fish. Such an official would understand the different conditions at different places and would accumulate experience that would prove most useful. The Home Secretary had not seen his way in the past to act upon this suggestion, but it might be possible that little things could be done by an inspector with experience of other districts. Without in the least wishing to quarrel with the inspector or to controvert his statements, he repeated that he differed from him as to the possibilities of the remedies that were suggested in the report. Where-ever there was a likelihood of danger to the community it was right to make regulations to obviate it, but he contended no
    592
    plea could be put forward by anybody that the fish-curing process carried on at Yarmouth was insanitary, or that it had an ill effect upon the health of anyone engaged in it. It was a most agreeable sight to see the arrival of a corridor train from Scotland crowded with young women who by their appearance, dress and conduct gave an impression of a very high type of civilisation. Their respectability and moral conduct was beyond all doubt, and yet they went to Yarmouth to work under the conditions which the inspector so condemned. Those girls and the people of Yarmouth were most healthy, and surely, therefore, there could be no plea raised for precipitate interference by the Home Secretary. He made those remarks because the inspector's Report would lead to a wrong impression if it were not met by observations from one possessed of local knowledge upon the subject. It was quite recognised in Yarmouth, both by private owners and the Corporation, that it would be greatly to the advantage of everyone concerned if, without interfering with or hampering the industry, some method could be found for its amelioration or improvement. But it had to be remembered that the fishery was a very precarious business, and permanent arrangements could not be made for it, although the people concerned always did their best. He hoped the Committee would understand that he was only doing what he considered his duty in endeavouring to put before it the facts as they concerned Great Yarmouth.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the right hon. Gentleman opposite had made a slight allusion to the question of convent laundries. That question raised a good deal of feeling some time ago, and that feeling was largely due to a want of appreciation of the facts. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Home Secretary had exercised a wise discretion in exempting these laundries from the ordinary inspection provided for by the Act. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to some scandals that had recently been published in connection with convents in France. If he followed the right hon. Gentleman, he meant to suggest the possibility of such scandals in the establishments in England, Ireland, and Scotland. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman

    593
    that, if he believed there was such a possibility he would join in any measure to prevent such scandals. But he did not believe in that possibility, and he would confirm what he had to say in regard to laundries in conventual institutions by one or two extracts from the Blue-book now before the Committee. It contained four Reports, from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Dublin, and they all agreed in stating that these institutions were extremely well conducted from a sanitary point of view Mr. Bellhouse (Dublin) stated in his Report:—
    "I have had an opportunity during the year of visiting a good many of these places by invitation, and I have been enormously impressed by the excellent arrangements that are made in all of them for the workers. In no case have found any instance of excessive hours, the regulations as to holidays are fully met by the observance of all the Church holidays; the only point in which there is not absolute compliance in this respect being in connection with the compulsory Easter holiday. This is never observed, but the want of it is more than counterbalanced by the extra number of other days which are observed instead. I have always found the rooms to be exceedingly well ventilated, high, lofty, bright, and airy; the wash-house flours are admirably laid and drained. In those places where machinery is used I have been surprised to see how well it has been guarded, and bow well the ventilating fans have been arranged. Much of the opposition to the Factory Act on the part of these institutions has been due to ignorance of what the law might mean to them. They have been afraid that we might interfere with their religious ceremonies by binding them to certain definite and unalterable hours, but I have always carefully explained matters and pointed out that they were, as a matter of fact, already complying to the fullest, extent with all the provisions of the Act, and that its application to them could make no possible difference in their arrangements. I do not believe that there is any opposition to or feeling against visits by an Inspector, male or female. In this district they are already well accustomed to such visits, for there is nearly always attached to the convent either an industrial, national or technical school, to which visits are paid by Government officials, or the convent is under the control of the Congested Districts Board, and subject to visits by officials from them. My experience is that a very hearty welcome is always offered by the Reverend Mother and the Nuns, who seem only too anxious to show everything about the premises."
    He thought that would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that there was no ground for the apprehension that any scandals such as had been alleged in regard to institutions in other countries
    594
    were possible in the conventual establishments of this country. He might say that the opposition to the intrusion of inspectors into these convent laundries in the ordinary way was on account of the fear which was entertained by the authorities that much inspection in the case of persons of ill balanced minds might have an injurious effect, and lead them to desire liberation and to return to their old ways. That was the basis of their opposition. So far as inspection of convents in relation to machinery and hours of labour was concerned, the report of Mr. Bellhouse showed that there was no objection on the part of these establishments to inspection.
    Some time ago, when the Factories Act was before the House, they succeeded in getting Section 104 introduced, the result being to make the Act apply to dockers and practically to all forms of employment on ships and in docks. And in addition they got it applied to dockets as men engaged in a dangerous trade. Further, it was provided that a wharf, quay, warehouse, and all machinery and plant used in loading or unloading any ship were included in the word "factory"; and, finally, by the second sub-section the expression "plant" was interpreted as including any gangway or ladder used by any person to load or unload or coal a ship. That was the legislation on which the House agreed. The trade of dockers was one of the most dangerous in the country, and the statistics which were submitted on that point constituted the reason why the then Home Secretary assisted in getting this section introduced into the Factories Act. He was sure that the present Home Secretary did not fall behind his predecessor in his anxiety to see the Act carried into operation. What he wanted to know was how far the right hon. Gentleman had been able to see that the proposals of the Act were given effect to. The narrow point with which he was most concerned at present was the ladder one. A ladder was really one of the most important parts of the machinery in the docking industry, and also in shipbuilding yards, and it was a matter which required the serious attention of the Home Office. He would confine his remarks to the case of the dockers. What happened? In large ships holds

    595
    were 35 to 40 feet deep, and in some cases the ladders did not reach to the full depth. He had seen ships in which it required something like an acrobatic performance to reach from the deck to the first rung of the ladder. The result was that the docker would miss the first rung of the ladder and fall forty or fifty feet into the hold, and if not instantaneously killed, he would be grievously injured. That was a disgraceful state of things. Furthermore, the ladders had frequently the rungs very widely apart, or broken; in fact, they constituted death-traps to these dockers. He understood that the Home Office had a set of rules in regard to this matter under consideration, but which had not yet been issued, and he was sure that the right hon. the Home Secretary would do everything in his power to make these regulations effective. The right hon. Gentleman had been courteous enough to give him an invitation to go to the Home Office and inspect an improved ladder. He declined to do so, because he did not consider it the business of any Member of Parliament to recommend any particular form of ladder. That was a matter on which the Home Office should exercise their own judgment. What he wanted was that the Home Office should see that the best kind of ladder was adopted. When inquiry was being made, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his inspectors had put themselves in communication with the representatives of the dockers themselves. It would be highly desirable that that should be done, because the inspectors had no practical experience in these matters, while the leaders of the dockers, who had been themselves dockers, and had gone through all their trials and bore in their own persons the marks of the wounds which they had received in the exercise of their calling, had that practical experience. There was also the danger of open hatches, which led to many accidents, both in the docks and in shipbuilding yards, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that the regulations as to these were modified and improved.
    SIR J. L. STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid he hoped his right hon. friend would take this opportunity of making an explicit statement
    596
    as to what the Government were going to do in regard to the question of the inspection of laundries. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool had said that the Catholic institutions were willing to come under general regulations, but he was not at all sure of that. All the evidence that he had was that these institutions were not of a very satisfactory nature. There was no doubt that the case for dealing with laundries had been more than made out. In the House of Lords two years ago, Lord James of Hereford, in the course of a debate on an Amendment to the Factories Acts, said—
    "My noble friend, Lord Windsor, was perfectly correct in saying that the Home Secretary had declared that the state of the law with regard to laundries was most unsatisfactory. My right hon. friend still entertains that view, and he has pledged himself to do his utmost to bring about an amendment of the law."
    And a little later Lord James said—
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I would remind the hon. Baronet that matters dealing with fresh legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.
    SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid he would then leave that point alone. He however, insisted that the laundries were not in a very satisfactory state. In reference to what the hon. Member for Bordesley had stated, he did not think that anyone wished to see this industry so regulated that the small laundries were squeezed out of existence. The laundries, however, must be made sanitary, and they should be so regulated that they should not be prejudicial to the health of their patrons or the community.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that the significant feature of the debate on the Home Office Vote was that only three hon. Members had spoken adversely of the Reports of the Inspectors of Factories, of the method of their doing their work, and of the general administration of the Factories and Workshops Acts. Curiously enough in these three instances the speakers represented the view of local trades, and might fairly be charged with taking the narrow view of their trade constituents rather than following the broad

    597
    principle which ought to weigh with a Member of the House of Commons. He ventured to say that on that point, the trades' constituents were not always the best guides, philosophers, and friends in regard to industrial legislation. It was significant that these three adverse speakers had always, for constituent reasons, been urging the Home Office to be cautious and slow in the administration of the factory laws, but above all, to remember that foreign competition was walking with giant and irresistible strides. There was a converse view to that position. This House contained many captains of industry and princes of commerce, men who had succeeded well in various branches of industry; and the three speeches to which he had referred had been received by them with great coolness. These speeches had influenced in no sense the audience to which they were addressed. But there was one of these speeches which no one could help noticing—viz., that of the hon. Member for Bordesley. That speech was in keeping with the low-water-mark of industrial organisation which distinguished the right hon. Gentleman, both in and out of office. The speech was an obvious rider to the hon. Member for Stoke and another hon. Member, who were under the impression that the Home Office were inclined to go further than they ought. That speech proved that the Home Office was not a revolutionary office and that the atmosphere of the Home Office did not provoke its occupants "to scorn delights and live laborious days," and to press for further legislation for the improvement of the condition of the workers of the country. It proved that if the Home Office had erred at all it was on the side of caution and slowness, and that they did not pioneer reforms until long experiment justified them in doing so. It threw a side-light on the tardy way in which the right hon. Gentleman gave concessions to reforms in the years that were gone; and a very interesting side-light on the difficulties which some hon. Members had to encounter in securing reforms from the right hon. Gentleman in many dangerous trades.
    The right hon. Gentleman urged one argument which ought to weigh
    598
    with one or two hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Home Office had something else to protect than the workers; that they must not by these restrictions and regulations improve certain trades altogether out of existence; that the margin of profit in these trades was so small that he was not sure that over-inspection would not destroy that margin. He thought that that theory had been discussed when the first Factory Act was passed; and that it had then been discredited. It was opposed to existing facts; and he would suggest to the right hon. Member for Bordesley that if the trade of Birmingham was suffering—as it might be—that might be due to the fact that in the small trades of Birmingham the garret-master still prevailed, and that in that environment there was a lack of that sub-division of labour and precision which alone could be secured in large factories. Birmingham had not followed the example of Manchester and other large manufacturing centres in the North of England where, by that sub division of labour and precision of method, their trade had improved in proportion as they had abandoned the old garret-master methods There they had instituted large workshops, employed foremen technically trained, and worked out the specialisation of industry. He would suggest to the right hon. Member for Bordesley that instead of devoting attention to preferential tariffs, his constituents should spend more money on the education of their artisans; and that instead of going round the world in search of Imperial fireworks they should send over the workmen of Birmingham to Germany to study the organisation of labour. If Birmingham was suffering from German competition it was due to the fact that Birmingham had not got such splendid technical schools and colleges as Charlottenburg and other cities of Germany. The right hon. Gentleman should remember the old adage—which was also the law of life of the nations—that the large fish lived on the little fish and that the little fish ate mud. That, too, was the law of the life of industry. The small garret-masters would have to go, and Birmingham would have to follow the example of other cities which had got over that stage of industry.

    599
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division talked about small laundries. He had great sympathy with washerwomen, and with all, especially women, who were obliged to work under bad conditions; but it was no kindness to them that they should be allowed to work under insanitary and noisome conditions. On the contrary, the more the standard of industry was raised, the more the people engaged therein were elevated. If hon. Members only knew the places where small laundry workers did their work, out of sheer sympathy they would improve the standard of work. When the right hon. Gentleman talked about over-regulation and over-inspection, he had only to look at the Report to find that, as regarded laundries in France, that country was abreast of this country in many respects, and excelled it in others; and as regarded brush-making, Germany was far ahead of this country from the point of view of health, sanitation, and hygiene. He did not believe, and never would believe, that expansion of Empire was to be had by the ill-health of the citizens of that Empire. On the contrary, he believed that insanitary conditions of work, low wages and long hours, constituted a reactionary condition of things from which the country in which it existed was certain to suffer. Such a condition of affairs would not be improved by walking about like Jeremiah, bemoaning the fate of England or crying "stinking fish." This country would not hold the commerce it had by following the reactionary course suggested by the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent deserved great credit for the manner in which he persistently stuck, not with the best of aims, to the question of lead poisoning. He had little to say to the hon. Member after the proper criticism he had already received. For five or six years the hon. Member had delivered similar speeches to that which he delivered to-day; but his speeches were not now so strong as they were two or three years ago. What was the reason? Five or six years ago the hon. Member said that all this inspection in connection with lead poisoning was not necessary. The Home Secretary, however, following the late Home Secretary, who deserved great credit for what he did in this particular industry as in many other
    600
    industries, insisted that regulations-should be carried out, that control should be exercised, and that inspection should be extended. What had been the result of the action of the Home Office? In 1899 there were 249 cases of lead poisoning, when the control of the Home Office was being introduced. In 1900 the cases dropped to 200; and after three years they had fallen to 106. The hon. Member should remember that was done in the teeth of his annual cry that the industry was going to be ruined.
    MR. COGHILLsaid that he never objected to the Home Office regulations in this matter.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he believed that if the Home Secretary had a free hand and more vigorously enforced the regulations, the 106 cases would be reduced very soon to forty or fifty cases. That should encourage the Home Office to pursue its policy more vigorously in the future than in the past. He could not congratulate the hon. Member on the way in which he had been a snag in the stream of industrial reform; and he thought that the hon. Member was almost as reactionary as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division. The last point he wished 10-refer to was that of underground bakehouses. The Home Office was the authority for the inspection of bakehouses, both above and under ground. In certain circumstances the Home Office deserved credit for its part in carrying out the reforms inaugurated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife nine or ten years ago. He had been very frequently criticised for his condemnation of underground bakehouses, but he was glad to say that, like Othello, his occupation in that direction was gone, because underground bakehouses were disappearing, and in a year or two very few would be left. But he would ask the Home Secretary to remember the fact that many of the places which were condemned by his own inspectors as bakehouses, and which could not, therefore, be used as bakehouses, were now being used for making confectionery, a branch of industry which certainly required just as much protection as that of bread-making. It was

    601
    a remarkable condition of things that they could not have underground bake-houses for the baking of bread, but could have them for the preparing and making of pastry, and the hundred and one toothsome morsels with which people regaled themselves. He thought the Home Office ought to construe underground bakehouses or kitchens, where they were used for the cooking of food other than bread, as a place where no edible article ought to be made or prepared. The Medical Officer of Health for the City of London, in his Report on underground bakehouses in 1902, stated that in many cases the w.-c. accommodation was in a very defective condition. Twenty-six lavatories either opened or were ventilated into the kitchens, and in one case the lobby of the lavatory was used for the storage of meat. Those were the places where City merchants most did congregate. The medical officer said that there were cases in which kitchens were badly ventilated, walls dirty, floors defective, w.-c.'s without ventilation or light, and used by both sexes, cisterns not covered, and cisterns needing to be cleansed. That revealed a condition of affairs which was simply disgraceful and scandalous, and one on which the Home Office inspectors should be turned as soon as possible. The master bakers' organ said that the persons who denounced underground bakeries ought to see underground kitchens within a few hundred yards of Charing Cross; and the St. James's Gazette also described them unfavourably. He could quote instance after instance in which the condition of underground restaurant kitchens was really disgraceful. This House had perhaps the best kitchen in the world, but when they walked through that kitchen they were struck by the pallid appearance of those who carried on their work there, even under the best conditions. What, then, must the condition be of those who worked in the insanitary underground kitchens to which he referred. His view was that law and administration should deal with these places in precisely the same way as with underground bakehouses, and that they should henceforth be placed, not at the bottom, but at the top of buildings. In conclusion, he congratulated the Home Secretary and the officials of the Department on the continuous improvement in the Report.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,), who was very indistinctly heard in the gallery, was understood to say he would be hard to please if he had any fault to find with the tone of the debate. Although faults had been found, which he would endeavour to put right, the debate on the whole had been one of congratulation. Speaking, in the first place, of the date at which the Estimates were brought on, he pointed out that the Estimates which were taken first were those in which the greatest interest was taken, and they were taken when they were at the suggestion of right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite. He referred to the undesirability of taking this Vote extremely late, and said he did not think that the Report in connection with Lord James's inquiry would be available in so short a time as a fortnight or three weeks. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had mentioned a fact at which the Committee would rejoice—namely, that nowadays the question of administering these Acts was no longer to be considered one of Party politics. Continuity of spirit, policy, and administration was maintained by successive Secretaries of State. He thought that was a matter for congratulation which tended to better work being done by the inspectors and the Department. With regard to lead poisoning, he thought there was, generally speaking, reason to be satisfied with the steady decline in the number of cases. In 1899 there were in all 1,258 cases; in 1900 1,058; in 1901, 863; in 1902, 629. The diminution in the Potteries was even more remarkable. The effect of the special rules (first established some ten years ago) had been, he ventured to think, most marked, especially since the revision of 1898. This subject could hardly be thoroughly discussed just now, as the arbitration of Lord James was not jet concluded, but would be resumed next week, and the case was, so to speak, sub judice. He admitted that the position could not yet be considered to be entirely satisfactory, but there was certainly much satisfaction to be found in the figures quoted. He really thought that even the hon. Member for Stoke, with all his gloomy anticipation as to the effect of the restrictions on trade in this country, would agree that the improved state of affairs was

    603
    worth some sacrifice. Further progress must be made, further precautions were necessary, and it would be necessary to frame further rules to secure them. Something was being done with regard to insurance, and he had reason to think that the number of those who were insured would increase year by year. He assured the Committee that he would spare no effort to combat the evil of lead poisoning.
    As regarded fisheries, he was bound to say that the conditions of the premises used for pickling herrings at Great Yarmouth were not very satisfactory, and in some cases there was an absence of sanitary convenience. The matter had been brought to the notice of the sanitary authority, and he had every reason to be satisfied with the way in which they had received the suggestions and demands made by the Department with regard to putting their house in order. At Lowestoft, though the conditions shown in the Report were better than at Yarmouth, there were still unsatisfactory points; pressure was being brought to bear to secure the necessary improvement, and for the enforcing of the law. As regards fruit-preserving it had been suggested that very slow progress was being made, but it should be remembered that the rules were only made in June last, and he had little doubt that the next Report would show a more satisfactory result. The instances quoted by Miss Paterson certainly showed a striking disregard of hygienic considerations, and inquiries would be made. The new conditions under which fruit-preserving was now carried on seemed to require further consideration. If it were the fact that the factories were practically working all through the year it was possible that the special exemptions ought to be cut down or removed. That was a matter for consideration, and a primâ facie case for further inquiry had perhaps been made out. The extension of the "Particulars" principle to various trades must proceed gradually as need was shown. The complexity in the conditions of many trades made careful inquiry essential. Since the Act of 1901 was passed, which made extension to out workers possible, several branches of trade had been under consideration; extensions had been made
    604
    in four trades, and he hoped when the subject came up again for discussion, progress would be found to have been made towards meeting the wishes of the right hon. Baronet. Of course, many trades were acting voluntarily in the matter. As to the inspectorate, there was always room for the increase of inspectors of both sexes, and recent years showed a continuous increase in appointments. The appointment of a permanent lady inspector for the potteries had been considered by his predecessors who had not seen their way to place a lady inspector there permanently. In that view he concurred, believing that the staff of lady inspectors could be best turned to account by sending members of it where their services were most needed from time to time. Under that system the potteries had received their fair share of attention. In reference to the preparation of certain Returns, there was certainly some overlapping of authority between the Home Office and the Local Government Board; but he anticipated a removal of this objection from the report of the Committee which had been appointed under Lord Jersey to inquire into the distribution of work among the Departments.
    The hon. Member for Clitheroe, in a most moderate speech, had brought under notice the condition of the cotton cloth or steaming factories and the question of ventilation. He had also received useful suggestions privately from the hon. Gentleman on this subject some time ago. An inquiry was going on, and he fully appreciated the points the hon. Member had raised. The absence of prosecutions was no indication of neglect. There were difficulties in the way often which made success doubtful, and the Department had preferred to rely on warnings rather than on prosecution, with probability of failure to obtain conviction. The question of ventilation had careful attention, and he ventured to think that the fears of the hon. Member with regard to a detrimental lowering of the standard were groundless. With regard to the subjects referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire, they had been proceeding to a certain extent on the lines suggested

    605
    by the Committee over which he had presided. Theright hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife had also pressed the matter on his attention, and he could assure him that he would not forget the suggestions made. He might say the same with regard to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool. They had not only considered the question of safety in docks out had prepared rules dealing with the subject. He should be glad of any suggestions which the hon. Member might make to him. With regard to the question of laundries, he had been asked why they had not proceeded with legislation, and whether he was prepared with any announcement on the subject? He had gone carefully into the matter three or four times with the full determination to deal with it. He was glad to think that the voluntary inspection of many of the exempted laundries had been attended with considerable success. They had found that the public inspection had not the terrors which were anticipated, and this had greatly improved the feeling on the matter. Although there were still many difficulties, it was a subject which would have really to be taken up, and he hoped that would be soon. He sympathised to a certain extent with one point which had been raised by the right hon. Member for Bordesley, but he thought they would be agreed that they could not allow even the smaller laundries to remain without their being put into a sanitary condition.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: By local action.
    *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Well, the local authorities could be stirred up. Although he had no desire that these small laundries should be cut out of existence, he thought it was not too much to demand that sanitary conditions should be enforced. The only other question which he recollected was one raised by his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth with reference to the appointment of a peripatetic inspector of fisheries. He had had a correspondence with his friend on this subject, and he could only repeat that he believed that to have a wandering inspector would greatly interfere with the inspectory system of the country. The hon. Member for Battersea raised the question of underground bake-
    606
    houses, and he had complained that these underground places, which had been condemned as bakeries, were now used for the making of confectionery and as kitchens. This was a matter which rested with the local authority, but the instructive Report on the matter which the hon. Member had quoted would no doubt form ground for enquiry.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked: Did he understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was not satisfied with local inspection of the small laundries as regarded sanitary arrangements, and was he in some way or other going to put them under the Workshops Act?
    *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: No. What he had said was that he agreed with his right hon. friend in a desire to keep them going, but that he hoped they would be brought into a sanitary condition. He did not know whether, after the assurances he had given, the hon. Member for Clitheroe would deem it necessary to go to a division. They were all anxious to proceed in the direction the hon. Member had indicated, and he assured him that the matter would be thoroughly inquired into.
    *MR. SHACKLETONsaid he did hesitate about pressing this matter to a division. He thanked the right hon Gentle man for the courteous way he had received him upon previous occasions. The right hon. Gentleman had not said anything about the inspectors, and he would like a few words from him upon that subject. Previously there were three inspectors, and a general inspector was appointed to assist. These inspectors, as a rule, had no knowledge of the work. The number of mills worked upon this system had considerably increased, and it was absolutely necessary that more men, with a practical knowledge of the work, who understood how to take samples and check them, and make returns upon them, should be appointed. The right hon. Gentleman's reply in regard to the failure to prosecute offenders under the Act was not satisfactory. He was afraid that the courts of justice in Lancashire were not sufficiently independent to apply the Act in an honest and fearless way.
    *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that a large number of magistrates were, on account of being connected with particular trades, disqualified from acting in these matters.
    *MR. SHACKLETONsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. It was also said that the prosecutions having failed in previous cases they did not desire to bring up other cases and fail again. He knew that it was difficult to get the law administered in the Courts in Lancashire, but that fact gave no satisfaction to those who felt aggrieved. No assurances were given. The fact that an inquiry was going on had nothing whatever to do with the present Act. An inquiry was held some years ago and, a definite agreement having been come to, the agreement was embodied in the Act to which he had referred.
    MR. SLOANdirected the attention of the Home Secretary to one point which had been raised in the debate. In regard to most of the subjects raised the right hon. Gentleman had given assurances or pledges, but on the question of the inspection of laundries connected with conventual institutions he had given no promise at all. It had been suggested that, owing to the difficulties in the way, there was no possibility of legislation being brought in this session or next session, and he supposed they would have to look to another Government for it. In any case the question was a burning one, not only so far as the Ulster representatives were concerned, but this country also. The argument advanced against the inspection of conventual institutions was that there were good and holy people in them. All the more reason why they should be inspected—for if good and holy people were in these places there was nothing to hide. The argument of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool was that there was at present sufficient inspection, and in support of that contention had read the report of an inspector who gave credit to the authorities of the institutions visited for having equipped them with all the necessary accommodation and improvements. He desired to point out to the
    608
    House that the report was given by the individual who had been specially invited to see the institution, and the places would consequently be in the good order of a house when a friend was invited to tea. Inspection by invitation ought not to be considered sufficient to justify exemption from the ordinary inspection. The feeling was very intense on this matter, inasmuch as within the past twelve months great scandals had taken place in an institution known as the "Good Shepherd," and in connection with which an attempt to get a Question on the Paper of the House had been ruled out of order. He took that opportunity of entering his protest against such a proceeding and of asking the Home Secretary whether he could not, in the interests of the Protestant community of the United Kingdom, see his way to put Catholic laundries on a level with other laundries, and have them worked under the Factories and Workshops Act. A great Land Bill was now before Parliament. Suppose they exempted Roman Catholics from that Bill, what a hullaballoo there would be—and rightly so—from the Benches opposite! Why, if they were putting inspectors into the workshops—
    MR. NANNETTIasked whether the hon. Member was in order in dealing with a question of future legislation.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I was just going to interrupt the hon. Member. I understand that this is a matter which can only be dealt with by fresh legislation, and, therefore, it would be out of order to discuss it on this Vote.
    MR. SLOANsubmitted to the Chairman's ruling, though he quite felt that when the Home Secretary referred to the fact that he could not under the present circumstances promise legislation, he might be in order in entering his protest against that decision. He would not pursue the subject further than to say that, as representing an Ulster constituency, it would not conduce to the best interests of the people of this country, nor to the good feeling which

    609
    ought to subsist amongst all religious denominations, that one party should be exempt and another put under the rule. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to use some means, or enter into some understanding, whereby these difficulties might be removed and all institutions inspected under the Act.
    MR. NANNETTIsaid he desired to call attention to the grievance of a class of people in Ireland, who were not able to defend themselves, namely, the female workers. He had on several occasions brought under the notice of the House the inadequacy of female inspectors with regard to Ireland. He was told by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that the complaints would be looked into, but he was sorry to say that anything done so far to redeem that promise had not been satisfactory. In Ireland, so far as female workers were concerned, the Factories Act was a dead-letter. He was hopeful that the present Home Secretary would look into the matter, and that, if he could not appoint inspectors exclusively for Ireland, he would at least appoint additional inspectors in England, so that more assistance might be given in Ireland by visiting inspectors in order that a stop might be put to sweating, overcrowding, and long hours. Overtime was not only worked by adults but by young girls who were apprentices in several establishments throughout the country. He claimed that Ireland should be treated in a more generous manner than at present with regard to female inspectors. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to state the number of visits made to Ireland by female inspectors, and the amount of time they had spent in the country. It was only last week that a meeting was held in a town in Ireland to protest against the present condition of things. The meeting was presided over by a Roman Catholic curate and he was supported by a clergyman of another denomination. The reverend gentleman who presided stated the grievance felt by the female workers through the failure of the authorities to enforce the Act. The outcome of the meeting was that the poor girls immediately formed a trade union for the purpose of protecting themselves. What was going on in that
    610
    town was typical of what was happening all over Ireland. He urged that a permanent female inspector was required in Ireland, and he hoped the Home Secretary would give this matter more generous consideration than his predecessor had done. At their recent Conference in Derry the Irish Trades' Congress passed a special resolution on the subject, a copy of which was sent to the right hon. the Home Secretary. The same conditions existed in the country places as well as in large cities like Dublin and Belfast. He submitted that the right hon. Gentleman should give the people of Ireland that protection which the law provided for them, and which they did not get, simply because inspectors were not sent to that country.
    *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he had listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman as to the appointment of a female inspector in Ireland. He could not give any definite promise at that moment, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he would make it his business to fully inquire into the facts, and to give the most careful attention to the matter.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he agreed with all that his hon. friend had said in regard to the necessity of inspection in Ireland. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. FENWICKsaid it was rather inconvenient for hon. Members to discuss the Mines Report unless they had it in their hands at an earlier period of the session. The right hon. the Home Secretary would remember that the hon. Member for Mid Durham and himself had the honour of introducing to him a deputation of colliery winding enginemen, who put before him two resolutions. The first referred to sanitation. There were some colliery engine-houses where there was absolutely no sanitary convenience about the place. The other point to which the right hon. Gentleman's

    611
    attention had been directed was the necessity of two men being in an engine-house when men were ascending or descending the shaft. That was a very important question, because an engineman might be overcome when alone, and a fearful accident take place. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had, as he promised the deputation, consulted the inspectors on these matters, and whether any progress had been made in drafting regulations in regard to them.
    *MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he agreed that the hon. Gentleman had some reason for saying that it was very desirable that the reports of the inspectors of mines should be in the hands of Members before the Home Office Vote was discussed. He would make inquiries, and, if it could be done, it should be done in the future. As to the other points raised by the hon. Member for Wansbeck, he had not before him the final reports from the inspectors whom he had asked to inquire into the grievances. When he had come to a conclusion in the matter he would communicate with the hon. Member.
    MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that while acknowledging the courteous reply of the Home Secretary in regard to the earlier presentation of Reports, he wished to strongly endorse all that had been said by his hon. friend. There was no reason whatever why not only the Home Office Reports but those of all other Departments should not be in the hands of Members before the last day of April. The Committee could not discuss the administration of the Reports without having these Reports in their hands. He wished to draw attention to quite another matter—viz., the administration of what was known as the Gruelty to Animals Act of 1876. A great agitation took place twenty-five years ago, and public opinion was very much excited by disclosures as to the terrible pain and suffering inflicted on many animals for the purpose of scientific investigation. A Royal Commission was appointed, which obtained useful information on the subject. The
    612
    Report of the men of great eminence who sat on that Commission was very far-reaching, and Lord Cross, then Mr. Cross, Home Secretary in the Government of that day, than whom no man had ever filled that position better, founded on that Report a very good Bill, which went through the House of Commons. But when the Bill reached the House of Lords, the scientific "interest" raised such an opposition to it, that Mr. Cross, very much against his own judgment, consented to a considerable mutilation on Clause 3 in order to get the Bill through at the end of the Session in 1876. The hon. Member for Peckham some time ago introduced a Bill which would restore the Act of 1876 very much into the condition in which the Bill left the House of Commons, and, speaking broadly and generally, he would support that Bill. Section 3 of the Act placed the whole control of vivisection in the Home Office. There were some people who said that no painful experiment on a living animal should be made under any condition whatever. That was not his view. It was established before the Royal Commission of 1876 that it might be expedient to treat a living anima with a certain amount of pain under certain conditions for scientific investigation, but that the operation should be strictly guarded. There was always an inclination on the part of scientists to try and make out that they were alone the judges in this matter; that the scientific mind should be supreme; that pain on the part of animals should not be regarded in comparison with the pursuit of knowledge; and that, therefore, they should be free from all restrictions. They resented the provisions of the Act, and he did not say they tried to elude them, but they were in a constant state of dissatisfaction with them. He remembered that when the Act was being discussed in 1876, Mr. Robert Lowe, afterwards Lord Lowe, moved an Amendment that any graduate of a university should be permitted to obtain a licence for making experiments on living animals whensoever he desired. But that Amendment was lost by a vast majority, and the House decided that the lay mind should be predominant. The right hon.

    613
    Gentleman the Home Secretary was a layman and single-minded, whereas most of his predecessors in office had been professional men.
    And, it being half-past seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [14TH ALLOTTED DAY],
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £96,499, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."
    MR. JOHN ELLISsaid he believed that the right to inflict pain by way of experiment upon living animals ought to be very carefully restricted and guarded. Regulations should be imposed by the State. The Act of 1876 laid down that a person should not perform on living animals any experiment calculated to give pain, except subject to the restrictions of that Act. The State therefore recognised that experiments on living animals were illegal and must be stopped except when performed under certain regulations. The Act of 1876 was satisfactory in his opinion The conditions and principles which underlaid the matter of painful experiments on living animals might be taken to be three in number. In the
    614
    first place, the experiment must not be made except for a definite object or purpose. That was perfectly clear on the terms of the Act itself. Subsection 4 of Section 3 showed that the experiment must be performed with a view to the advancement or new discovery of physiological knowledge, or that it was useful for prolonging life, or for alleviating suffering. Those words governed the whole thing. Anything outside the clause was ipso facto illegal.
    Then, in the next place, it must be done by a duly certified and qualified person. No one at large could perform these experiments. In the third place, it must be done on licensed premises. It could not be carried on anywhere and everywhere. The whole thing was governed by inspection, and it was rather as regarded inspection that he wanted to address himself more specifically to the Home Secretary. That right hon. Gentleman was the head of a great Department and had under him two inspectors—one for England, and one for Scotland, each of whom had certain geographical functions. But the most important thing to be considered was the character of the men, and some years ago that was not a very satisfactory matter. It was the duty of some hon. Members at that time to point out that the inspector then employed had been a declared admirer of the system of vivisection, and might even be ranked as an adherent to the system. He did not think a man could properly fulfil the functions of an inspector—he would not go so far as to say that the inspector should be a declared anti-vivisectionist—but he could not do justice to his post unless he were a reasonable man with a fairly balanced mind, and did not enter upon his duties with any very strong or conceived opinions either for or against vivisection. He should be able to investigate matters with a calm and even judgment. That was all he asked, and if the right hon. Gentleman could assure the Committee on that point he would be perfectly satisfied. In years gone by the position was very different, but time must have dispossessed the person who was then holding office. He had

    615
    no personal knowledge of the present inspectors, and he made no complaint with regard to the method of inspection. The Home Secretary had a perfect army of inspectors for mines and factories, and it was to be hoped that with regard to this matter of painful experiments on living animals the right hon. Gentleman would see that justice was done. His inspectors should investigate the matters under their jurisdiction with judicial calm, and report upon them in the same spirit. That was the attitude which he ventured to think the inspectors under this Act should adopt. He would further suggest, without desiring to cast any reflections upon anyone, that surprise visits should be adopted. That could be done without throwing any slur on the character of anyone, and he hoped that the gentleman who had to deal with painful experiments on living animals would be thin-skinned.
    His last point was as to the personal attitude of the Home Secretary. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was slack or indifferent in this matter, but he hoped that he wouldgive dueregard to the character of his inspectors, and to the way in which they performed their functions, and that he would see that the Act was carried out thoroughly and well. It was absolutely necessary that the Act passed in 1876 should be thoroughly carried out. He hoped that the Home Secretary would assure the Committee that he agreed with the three cardinal principles he had laid down, and that they would be able to close this discussion with the feeling that they had the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy with them, and that he would see that the Act was not a dead letter.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he had listened with satisfaction to the extremely moderate speech of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division. They might be sure that the Home Secretary did not regard this question in any way from a prejudiced point of view, but rather from a layman's point of view. What was the question they were putting to the right hon. Gentleman? At present there was a certain Act of Parliament which was passed in
    616
    the year 1876. That Act had been modified, as some of them thought, in the wrong direction. He believed there was a very strong feeling in the country among moderate people that the alteration made in the Act was a wrong alteration, and that some steps should be taken to restore the Act to the position in which it formerly stood. He did not suppose that any Member of that House—and certainly no Member on the opposite side—would regard him in any kind of way as a sentimental person, or as one likely to be actuated by sentimental motives. How was the Act, as it stood now, administered? His hon. friend had stated that in coal mines and other industries the word of the mine-owner, however respectable he might be, was not taken conclusively as law, but steps were taken by independent people to see that the Act was obeyed. Licences were granted to certain people to make certain experiments, and there was very little, if any, provision made to see that these experiments were carried out in the spirit in which he was sure the Home Secretary granted the licences. The Reports made on those experiments were to a great extent prepared by the gentlemen who were licensed to carry them out. He was not one of those who thought that under no circumstances should vivisection be practised, but he did desire to see safeguards put on the practice, and that the experiments should only be carried on with a certain object in view—i.e., with a desire to achieve something which would throw light on certain unknown subjects for the benefit of mankind, and not merely to show us what was already well-known, or merely to illustrate lectures in order to give students an opportunity of succeeding in their studies. He did not want to cast blame on any person who was desirous of advancing science, but they all knew that people were likely to be carried away from their better feelings when pursuing an interesting subject, and they must not pay too much attention to statements made by people who were personally interested. He believed he was right in thinking that the Home Secretary would approach this subject with a certain amount of consideration, and that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to take steps to more efficiently

    617
    safeguard the law as it at present existed. He hoped further that the right hon. Gentleman would say with what favour he regarded legislation which had for its object an improvement of the existing law. The hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded to a Bill that he (Sir F. Banbury) hoped to soon introduce to the House, although the right hon. Gentleman could not approve that Bill.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is out of order in discussing proposed legislation on this subject.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYaccepted the Chairman's ruling. He only wished to point out that the hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded to a Bill standing in his name, and he thought it might be in order to ask the Home Secretary what steps he proposed to take to stop what was recognised by a great number of people in this country to be a growing evil. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take steps to see that for the future no licences would be given unless proper safeguards were observed, and to ensure that when a licence was given it was carried out in the manner in which it was intended to be carried out when given?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLwas sure that no one would be more anxious to protect the rights and privileges of animals than the Home Secretary. It had been his fortune, or misfortune, to have known the right hon. Gentleman for thirty years. His earliest recollection of him was that he was always accompanied by a dog, and that he was always a good master of dogs and cats. First of all they had to elicit the sympathies of the right hon. Gentleman on the side of preventing, as far as possible, cruelties being perpetrated in the name of scientific research upon those humble sentient creatures who were more or less placed in our care and under our charge. It reflected well on the House of Commons that it could give a few minutes to the consideration of the rights and privileges of creatures that had no voices to be heard on the subject of preferential tariffs, and did not even understand the difference between Chamberlainism and Ritchieism. The Committee were very
    618
    fortunate in having this discussion at the present time of the year. The Report was very interesting reading. He wished with all earnestness that the English public could realise the Act of 1876—a Vivisection Act which was supposed to protect the rights of animals, but which had done exactly the reverse. It had safeguarded excessive vivisection; it had protected on paper cruelty, and it had protected on paper scientific research, which was not scientific research but cruelty. The Report was not a judicial document, but an apologia for increased protection of vivisection. They could not dissociate themselves from the idea that these men, holding licences for experimenting upon living animals, were members, and honoured members, of the surgical profession; that they were bound by professional feeling not to go against their own class; and that that tone, feeling, idea, and aspect had been engendered for years and years in their minds. It could not be otherwise but that the sight of suffering, which at first moved one so strongly, should afterwards become less keen as one became more hardened. When it was contended that vivisection was useful and necessary, it was utterly impossible for those gentlemen to approach it in a spirit to ascertain whether it was cruel or not. With that environment of mind those gentlemen were not competent to deal with the question. The names of the institutions which were licensed for vivisection occupied forty-three pages of the Report; but there was only one inspector and an assistant-inspector to inspect them all. The institutions were scattered all over the country; but the travelling expenses of the two inspectors were limited to £100 a year. If they visited all the institutions, and if they made surprise visits, clearly their travelling expenses would be far more. The Chief Inspector received £315 a year, and his assistant £210. Those salaries were paid, not for the inspection of the institutions licensed for vivisection, but in order to lull the public conscience as to what went on. The £525 which was paid for inspection was so much moral morphia to deaden the public conscience. He would recommend his right hon. friend not to attend a vivisection operation with a revolver in his hand; he himself would not be responsible for the consequences.

    619
    The Report stated that during the year the usual inspections had been made, and that the animals were found everywhere to be suitably lodged and well-cared for. An earlier Report stated, however, that the best experiments had been carried out in connection with food, which of course meant that the animals were being starved. Then, as if to save their faces, the inspectors mentioned a case in which a man who had been licensed to vivisect dogs and cats, extended his prerogative to guinea-pigs. If the right bon. Gentleman would ask his mentors at the Home Office for information he would find that since the Act of 1376 was passed not one vivisector had ever been fined a penny or imprisoned for an hour, or deprived of his certificate, though sometimes the certificate was suspended. He was, therefore, right in stating that all this was a mere matter of administration, and that the animals were worse off after the Act of 1876 than they were before. The Act had operated as an anodyne to the public mind. Persons who objected to vivisection were called faddists; and he himself was very proud that he was a faddist in that connection. He found that during the last year there had been sixty-two aspirants to diplomas as vivisectionists; and there were no fewer than 3,261 more experiments in 1902 than in 1901. He would ask hon. Members who would not see a dog or a cat, or the humblest sentient being, injured to consider that.
    Further, it should not be imagined that each experiment only meant one operation on one animal. An operation was a series of scientific researches on various animals, and was oftentimes conducted by very unskilful hands, and by men who knew no more about the physiology of a sentient being than a child who broke up a watch did of its mechanism, It would have been thought, from the Report, that the animals were rather the better for the operations performed on them. He wondered how the gentleman who wrote that Report would feel if he burnt his finger with a cigar. The experiments involved the removal of important organs, and even parts of the brain. The vivisectionists watched I the various results just as persons look at the retort in a chemical experiment.
    620
    They even seemed to think that it did more good than harm to have part of an animal's brain removed; and they were the gentlemen who were the protectors of animals, and who would not allow them to be cruelly treated. His hon. friend had spoken hotly of the mutilation of animals for the pleasure of medical students; and another hon. Gentleman stated that he did not think animals were vivisected in the lecture room. But in the Report it was stated that no less than 171 experiments had been conducted in lecture rooms. Was that right or proper? Dr. Houghton, who was one of the Senior Fellows of Trinity College and a great scientific and medical man, opposed the practice of vivisection altogether, because he did not wish, as he said, to make the medical students under his care young devils. The 171 experiments did not mean only 171 animals; it meant a whole series of scientific research; and the statement in the Report was part of the deception, no doubt unconscious, which it presented. Was there ever a more amusing claim for humanity made, except perhaps the claim of the old woman who, when remonstrated with for skinning live eels, said: "Oh, Sir, they are accustomed to it, and don't mind it at all." He would like to send the Report to Mr. W. S. Gilbert for his next comic opera. The experiments which were performed with an anæsthetic numbered nearly 12,000, and were mainly innoculations; and they were defending it on the ground that they were not painful. But the innoculations were conducted to convey fever, diphtheria, and every other disease that human flesh was heir to. According to the Report those experiments lasted during the whole period from the administration of the drug, or the injection, until the animal recovered from its effect, which possibly meant a period of several days. The animal was, he believed under an anæsthetic for the most serious innoculations; and it was admitted in the Report that the passing of a particular disease might lead to a fatal termination. In the event of pain as a result of innoculation, and in no case in which an innoculation was effectual did pain not ensue, a condition attached to the licence required that the

    621
    animal should be placed under an anæsthetic until the main result of the experiment was attained. Who was to be the judge of the maintenance of the experiment? Was it the man who performed it? Such a system was simply intolerable. One effect of the system of vivisection was a tendency to transfer itself to the human frame; and that was why the poor had such a terror of going into hospitals and submitting themselves to the unsympathetic and cruel hands of the experimentalists.
    There was no remedy for the disease of cancer; yet what could be thought of a man who, merely as an experiment, transferred that disease to a sentient being? What had the Home Secretary, as a feeling man, to say to that; the right hon. Gentleman himself would give his life ten times over to prevent others suffering. Was he not bound to pay attention to such a matter as that? If he would presume to put himself in the position of such an exalted man as the Home Secretary, he would cross-examine the inspectors with as little sympathy as an Irish Member cross examined the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He would ask the inspectors if they visited vivisection dens when everything was swept and garnished; and if they told the doctors that it was merely a formal visit; and that a proper certificate would be given. What he wished to impress upon the British public was, that the Act of 1876 was a sham and was not properly administered. There were two papers in London which did not reflect his views completely, but they had rendered enormous service in this matter; one was the Daily News and the other the Morning Leader. It was obvious that the two inspectors did not discharge the duties they were expected to discharge. He would like to know why there had been no enlargement of the staff of inspectors; why the number of vivisection licences and vivisection dens and operations had increased. He should also like to know what care had been taken to put animals which had been operated on out of pain. One of the impostures in the Report was that it was stated year after year that the experiments were painless. He admitted that
    622
    the operations themselves were painless, but the after results were not. The waking-up after an anesthetic was anything but painless. They ought not to do to poor dumb creatures what they would not do to themselves; and, as far as he was concerned, he would never lose an opportunity of protesting against the present system. He admitted he had no power; but if he had he would abolish vivisection altogether in every shape and form. He did not believe it was useful for scientific research, or for any other reason. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in the matter; and he was sure he would get a sympathetic answer. Let the right hon. Gentleman take the matter into his own hands; and let him recollect the dog which he owned, and which he himself was acquainted with at Oxford, and remember what efforts he would make to prevent that dog being ill-treated.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member with great interest, and as far as he could make out its main point was the necessity for proper inspection. He, therefore, hoped to have the support of the hon. Gentleman when he referred to the question of laundries.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that it might be more convenient for the proper order of debate that the matter to which he referred should be first disposed of.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that was not a point of order, but merely a matter of the convenience of the Committee.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he wished to draw attention to a Report which dealt with allegations in connection with charitable laundries. In Ireland there were three Protestant Institutions and twenty-two Roman Catholic Institutions. He did not make any accusation whatever against them; he believed the motives for which they were established were excellent; and as a rule they dealt with an unfortunate class of society which deserved all their sympathy. But they were also great trading concerns; as his hon. friend said, they were at the present moment making many thousands

    623
    a year profit in competition with other laundries, and quite apart from any religious difficulty they certainly should be subjected to inspection, if only as a matter of fair-play. Two years ago he brought that matter forward, and was defeated, but he was sure that when the Home Secretary looked at the Report he would realise the gravity of the difficulty. It was all very well to say that these institutions were properly conducted. Personally he knew nothing against them, but still it was necessary to bear in mind that the people employed in them could not effectually complain of their treatment. Parliament ought therefore to step in and see that the trade was carried on under proper inspection.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must remind the right hon. Member that it is impossible to provide for the inspection of Convent laundries without fresh legislation.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONhoped he was in order in pointing out the necessity for inspection.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We are discussing the administration of the Home Office, which has no power at present to inspect these laundries.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that under the circumstances he would submit that it was undesirable that any trade should be carried on unless outside inspection was possible.
    *SIR MICHAEL FOSTERsaid he sympathised with the impulses of those who opposed vivisection, because he recognised in them the conviction that real humanity was not humanity to man only, but to all the things around us. For that very reason he resented, he thought he might say justly, the terms which were applied to the profession to which he belonged, such as "devilish," "hellish," "fiendish," "torture den," and "vivisection den." Did the Committee for a moment think the medical profession consisted of devils? If they did, let them follow the advice of the hon. Member for Donegal and abolish vivisection altogether. What would they do if they abolished vivisection altogether? Vivisection experi
    624
    ments were not carried on with the clear certainty that the result obtained would immediately suggest a cure for any particular evil belonging to mankind. The result was a contribution to the general knowledge of mankind, and an enlargement of the power of mankind. The increase of medical power that occurred year by year was due to the increase of medical science. Medical science from the time of Galen to the present time had been based in part on vivisection. It was based on many things—on observations on men, on observations on dead things, on observations on dead animals, and on experiments on living animals. Those elements were all interwoven, so that we could not pick out any part of the advance of knowledge as belonging to this head or that; and if we withdrew experiments on living matter the whole would fall together as a confused heap. The results which had been obtained in regard to malaria, as a consequence of which West Africa had become an entirely different place from what it used to be for the white man to live in, were not due to seeking a particular cure, but to the advance of general science. So it was with cancer. If the efforts of scientific men were not trammelled by unnecessary restrictions they would in time be able to make out the natural history of the nature of cancer, and when they had done that, the cure would come at once. For the general advance of medical science they demanded that experiments on living animals should be continued. Physiologists had accepted the Act, and had loyally observed it, and he appealed to successive Home Secretaries to say if they had not done so. The persons who were licensed to carry out the experiments could be trusted; there was the further safeguard of inspection by inspectors, who loyally did their duty, who made surprise visits, and who at once reported any abuse of the Vivisection Act. Could not the licensed persons be trusted in their efforts to arrive at the truth, which they desired for the benefit of mankind? Could they not be trusted with such safeguards? If they could not be trusted, then let that be said and vivisection be discontinued. The descriptions heard of experiments were

    625
    not true descriptions. One great object of the physiologist was that for the sake of the results pain should be abolished altogether, and a very large amount of the progress in recent years was due to the fact that the operations could be carried on without pain. It was only when in a few rare cases pain was part of the study that anæsthetics were not used, and when pain or sensations was the subject of inquiry, physiologists had not shrunk from experimenting on themselves. When a nerve was divided there was loss of movement and loss of sensation; after a while the nerve united, and there was return of movement and sensation. In experiments on animals they could judge of the return of movement, but it was difficult to judge of the return of sensation. A friend of his had a nerve in his arm divided in order that he might study the return of sensation. He found it caused him little pain, and only inconvenience for a short time; the loss of movement was brief. That was an ordinary experiment such as was carried on in laboratories, and gave valuable results. The Home Secretary, through his inspectors, who, though they belonged to the medical profession, were able to thoroughly carry out their duties, had adequate means of preventing any abuse of the Act; and an even surer safeguard was in the fact that physiologists had no desire to abuse the Act, and simply wished to carry on their researches for the benefit of mankind.
    *DR. HUTCHINSONsaid the Committee might contrast the tone of the brutal vivisector with that of the soft-hearted gentleman who introduced the subject. In the strongest manner he wished to repudiate the epithets that had been used towards his profession.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he simply repeated the statement of a well-known man that he would not allow vivisection in the University of Dublin because it might tend to make the medical students young devil.
    *SIR MICHAEL FOSTER: The hon. Member certainly used the phrase "vivisection dens"; I resent that. He also spoke of the tortures there inflicted; I emphatically resent that. And he spoke of medical students as "young devils"; I object to that.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I cannot allow my character to be assailed. What I said was that the doctor to whom I referred stated he would not allow vivisection in the University of Dublin because it had a tendency to make medical students young devils.
    *DR. HUTCHINSONsaid that as his observations had drawn a recantation from the hon. Member he had not wasted the time of the Committee. Apparently, the man who received the greatest honour in the House was the man who took most lives, such as the soldier who killed a large number of men. But the object and sphere of the members of the medical profession was to save life and prevent suffering. If a Member of the House was ill, or had suffering in his family, who was the person called in? It was one of the men who had obtained his skill and knowledge from this "horrible" vivisection. A laboratory ought not to be looked upon as a kind of butcher's shop; it was nothing of the sort. He hoped the House would continue to keep a soft corner in its heart for the noble profession to which he had the honour to belong.
    *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he could not complain of the manner in which this subject had been brought forward, but he was bound to say that if everybody who approached this rather painful subject would study the extreme moderation of the clear statement of the hon. Member for London University they would be much more readily and cheerfully listened to. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division and the hon. Member for Peckham had assured the Committee that they were not to be included in the category of anti-vivisectionists; they simply desired that the existing Act should be carefully administered, and possibly amended in

    627
    order to make the administration more effective. They did not go so far as the hon. Member for South Donegal, who described himself as a root-and-branch opponent of all experiments on live animals. The hon. Member had described his ideal inspector—a reasonable man, with a well-balanced mind and no pre-conceived opinions. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member, and he would assure the Committee that those were exactly the qualifications possessed by the present chief inspector, Dr. Thane, and he thought he could say the same of his assistant. In that respect the country could not be in better hands. As to the conditions under which vivisection was permitted in this country, the Act of 1876 was based on the almost unanimous report of a Royal Commission, and the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division had admitted that the Bill as introduced was a most proper measure, but complained that it was altered in its later stages.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: In another place.
    *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that, at any rate, the principle of the Bill was approved by the hon. Member. If Members desired, as did the hon. Member for South Donegal, to prohibit all experiments on living animals, they must obtain the repeal of that Act. All he had to do was to administer the Act as he found it, and he could assure the Committee the greatest precautions were taken in its administration. He thoroughly appreciated the responsibilities which the Act devolved upon his Department; in fact, there was hardly anything connected with the duties of the Home Office which gave him a greater sense of responsibility than the administration of this Act. He was a great lover of dumb animals himself, and would be the last person in the world to permit suffering to be inflicted upon them which was not accompanied by greater benefits to the human race—much less to permit unnecessary suffering. He would like to explain to the Committee the practice of the Home Office in regard to the granting of licences. Applications for all came before the Home Secretary personally, and they were carefully inquired into and signed by him. No licence or certificate
    628
    was granted except on the recommendation of an eminent medical man, such as the president of the College of Physicians or the president of the College of Surgeons, or without reference to the Society for the Propagation of Scientific Research. Care was taken to see that the licencee was a person whose qualifications were undoubted, whose bonâ fides were beyond dispute, and whose desire for purely scientific research was unquestioned. The Secretary of State never allowed an experiment unless he was satisfied that it was for a proper and an adequate scientific object, that it was to be performed by a properly-trained and competent person, and that it would be conducted with every precaution against unnecessary pain being inflicted. The experiments were divided into three classes. In the first class the animal was under complete anæsthesia from the beginning to the end of the experiment, and was painlessly killed before it became conscious. In such cases no pain whatever could be inflicted. Those cases were about one-eighth of the whole. In the second class of cases the animal was under complete anæsthesia during the experiment, but was allowed to recover consciousness and to live under observation, so that the effect of the operation might be noted. The experiments in this class though fewer in number were of the greatest importance. They were most fruitful in increasing scientific-knowledge, and leading to the amelioration of human suffering and the curing of disease.
    MR. JOHN ELLISasked whether those were the experiments under Sub-section (3) of the proviso of Clause 3.
    *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid yes, and that they were allowed only on comparatively rare occasions; they numbered only about one-twentieth of the whole, and they were hedged in with every restriction. The actual operation was performed under anæsthetics, with antiseptics, and if suppuration or pain ensued the animal was immediately killed. The third class of experiments were performed without anæsthetics. In this class no experiment whatever was allowed which involved greater pain than that caused by a simple hypodermic injection. It would be almost absurd to describe the prick of an

    629
    inoculating needle as an operation. Even in these operations the animal was destroyed at once if any pain resulted. When the licence was granted the licencee was bound to make reports to the inspector. He was always liable to visits from the inspector, and those visits were practically always surprise visits. As an additional security, no experiments were allowed in private places. Nearly always they were allowed only in great medical schools and in the laboratories of pathological institutions. Last year 319 persons were licensed, of whom 112 did not perform any experiment. It was true that there was an increase of sixty-two, but that increase was due to an alteration in the termination of the year during which the statistics were taken. Hitherto the statistics had been taken from 31st December to 31st December; but the last report dated from 31st December. 1901, to 28th February, 1903. There were twenty-six towns in the United Kingdom in which registered places were situated, and in those only could experiments be performed. Of the sixty-two registered places in those towns seventeen were in London. Every registered place was visited by the inspector every year, and sometimes several times a year, and the inspector was in constant communication with the licencees all over the country. It was the duty of the inspector to make himself personally acquainted with the methods by which experiments were performed, and wherever the conditions of the licence were violated the severest notice was taken of it and if necessary the licence was revoked. Successive Secretaries of State had inclined to the view that the appointment of additional inspectors was not as yet necessary. If it could be proved to him that there was immediate necessity for the appointment of additional inspectors, he should certainly see that they were appointed. Successive Home Secretaries—and he included himself in this category — had been among the severest critics of vivisection. They had not been content to take things for granted, but had taken an interest in seeing that precautions were properly observed. There was no reason whatever to think that this matter was left entirely in the hands of the inspectors
    630
    without ever coming to the knowledge of the head of the Department. Although the number of experiments had increased during the last quarter of a century the increase was really trifling except with respect to the experiments included under Table III. (B)—viz., experiments of the nature of simple inoculations. These experiments rarely caused any real suffering, and were conducted with the greatest possible care. They were performed not only for purposes of research in connection with special scientific objects, but were constantly performed on behalf of public authorities. Some were undertaken for the benefit of the House of Commons itself in order to test the conditions under which hon. Members lived there, some for the Local Government Board, some for the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, some for the Board of Agriculture, others for County Councils and other municipal corporations. They had all been justified by the results obtained. He would only say, in conclusion, that his own control was exercised with the greatest care and a full appreciation of his responsibility. He was always open to listen to criticism, and when any bonâ fide case was submitted to him he would see that it was probed to the bottom. It would be almost impossible to improve upon the administration of the Acts except on the point that it was necessary, as it might be, to increase the number of inspectors. He doubted whether the ability of the inspectors was sufficiently recognised and whether they were adequately remunerated considering their ability and the amount of work they did.
    MR. JOHN ELLISthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the full manner in which he had dealt with the question, and, while adhering to what he had said, admitted that the tone and spirit of the Home Secretary's reply left nothing to be desired.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he wished to say that if he thought experiments were carried on as described in some publications, or as he believed they were carried on in France and Germany, he should urge the abolition of vivisection altogether. To carry on

    631
    experiments upon live animals without anæsthetics, without a hope or promise of any definite result, would not meet with approval. He had gone into the matter with some care, and he believed that the experiments were carried on in this country with every reasonable safeguard. Did his hon. friend deny that some of the most beneficent changes in medical science had been partly brought about by vivisection? In view of this fact was it not justifiable to make experiments with anæsthetics for the benefit of medical science? His hon. friend the Member for South Donegal had expressed some feeling for the lower animals, but he thought he ought o have some feeling also for the higher animals. It was well known that diphtheria defied medical science a few years ago, and when a medical man saw a child being slowly choked to death by this disease he used to be absolutely unable to prevent it. At the present time diphtheria could be relieved and cured, and that result was largely due to vivisection. Dr. Pasteur would never have accomplished the great results he had achieved but for vivisection. Let the Committee consider for a moment the progress which had been made in regard to surgical operations on the brain. A few years ago it was considered that the brain could not be touched without destruction of life, but now experiments were being performed daily on the brain, and those experiments which had largely transformed medical science would have been almost impossible without vivisection. Again, there was the operation for appendicitis, which had saved more lives than anything else in surgical science. That had been made possible by vivisection experiments. In the face of these facts, he asked his hon. friend to extend some of the overflowing sympathy to humanity which he extended to the lower animals. Under the safeguards of the Home Office, vivisection experiments were properly carried out, and it would be a great loss to medical science if they were not allowed to continue.
    *CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that before he dealt with the question of the police force he ought to state his reasons for bringing the question on in connection with this Vote. He did so because on a previous occasion the Chairman pointed out that this was the proper Vote to deal with the subject, because it dealt with the policy of the Home Secretary as regarded the police. His complaint affected some 2,000 police constables within the County of London, or one-seventh of the entire force. They were married men, and their grievance was that they had to perform exactly similar duties under precisely similar circumstances as their fellow-constables, and yet they received 1s. 6d. per week less pay.
    Some three years ago the Council of the City of London, finding that the rentals throughout the Metropolis generally had increased to such an extent as to raise the price of living generally for the working classes, came to the conclusion that their constables were insufficiently paid as compared with the rate of pay they received some years previously; and, actuated by a right and proper feeling, they decided to raise the pay of their constables by 3s. a week. He immediately suggested to the Home Secretary that he should deal in a similar manner with the members of the Metropolitan police force. Eight or nine months had elapsed before any action whatever was taken, and at the end of that time the Home Secretary, instead of granting an increase of 3s., gave them an increase of 1s. 6d., and 1s. 6d. more in the shape of a rent aid which he confined to those members of the police force who were married and living within boroughs, and he excluded all those men in the urban or rural districts outside boroughs but within the area of the County of London. At that time an appeal case was going on as regarded pensions, and it was decided that allowances were not pensionable. The natural result was that every man in the force believed that he had been given one half of his increase in this way in order to avoid the infinitesimal sum by which the pension would be increased. When he

    633
    made this statement to the late Home Secretary he pointed out that no such reason ever entered his mind, and that the idea was that in those districts house rent was lower. As a matter of fact, owing to increased means of communication, rents were almost as high in one part as another, and, where they were not so high, facilities for cheap markets were so great that this counteracted the small difference there was between the rents. He should like to point out the injustice of this arrangement. Take, as an example, the case of Highgate. There a police station was moved, about 150 yards outside the borough boundary, and in consequence of that the constables at that station ought not to receive this 1s. 6d. per week, although their duties took them into the borough, yet they did. In Kilburn there was a new police station about 150 yards outside the boundary of the borough, and although the men stationed there were doing duty within the borough they were deprived of this 1s. 6d. a week extra pay, whereas the men in the borough received it. In the borough of Ealing, which had recently been constituted a borough, they received at once the 1s. 6d. extra pay, whereas their comrades doing duty near them did not receive it. The reserve men did special duty which was not confined to any particular district, but any reserve man attached to a station within a borough in the Metropolitan Police area received this 1s. 6d., but those who were attached to a station outside the boroughs in the Metropolitan Police area were deprived of that 1s. 6d. He could not conceive of anything more calculated to cause well-founded discontent in a force than this. They had an illustration of this during the late war. The last batch of Imperial Yeomanry received 5s. a day, whereas the Infantry
    634
    only received 1s. a day, and this caused a great deal of discontent. It was the duty of the Government to do everything in their power to prevent such a state of things as that arising in the police force? On the 30th May last year when he brought this question before the Committee what was the Home Secretary's apology for not dealing out even-handed justice to the whole of the police force? The reason he gave was that it would cost a sum of £140,000 to the ratepayers, but he did not state that there had been an increase in the population within the area of the County of London of about 50,000 per annum. He had made some inquiries into the cost of this change, and instead of being £140,000, he thought the real cost to give this 1s. 6d. to all the men outside boundaries of boroughs would be about £10,000. As a matter of fact, he thought it would not exceed £8,000, which would be a mere drop in the ocean, and would not add one single farthing to the rates. Owing to the great increase of wealth and population, the rateable value of the area of the county of London was increasing by leaps and bounds; therefore there was no question of throwing an extra burden upon the ratepayers. He had received a Resolution from one of the Councils urging the necessity for taking some action in this matter. He could not understand upon what principle these men were not given this extra 1s. 6d. who lived outside the borough boundaries. There was one borough which for over three-quarters of a mile bordered upon an Urban District Council area, and on one side of the road the men, doing the same duty as on the other side, and living in the same building under the same conditions, drew 1s. 6d. per week more than the others. He could see no

    635
    greater injustice than this, and he was extremely anxious to hear what explanation the Home Secretary was prepared to give.
    *CAPTAIN BALFOURsaid the hon. Member for Newington had spoken only of the Metropolitan boroughs, but it was not a case of the Metropolitan boroughs only, but of the whole area of Greater London. Representations had been made to the Home Secretary as to the unevenness of the application of this allowance of 1s. 6d. per week. If a policeman resided in a borough he got the allowance, but if he lived in Willesden, because it was not a borough he would not get that allowance. His own constituency was in a very peculiar position. A portion of it was not now a borough, and the constable did not receive this 1s. 6d., whereas this portion would probably be, by next November, constituted a borough, and, consequently, the constables would then get this extra allowance of 1s. 6d. It did not necessarily follow that because a district was a borough it was cheaper to live in than an Urban District Council area. On the contrary, in Kingston, which was a borough, the people lived cheaper than outside. It had been said that frequently policemen applied to be transferred outside the borough where they would not get this 1s. 6d. extra, but they, no doubt, did this for family reasons. A constable might have been recommended to go outside the borough by his medical man, and often he was ready to do this and sacrifice the extra pay. In London a constable might probably be satisfied with a couple of rooms, but in the districts outside the boroughs it was not so easy to get a couple of rooms, and he often had to take a house.
    636
    It might be said that they must draw the line somewhere. At the present time, the line was drawn in such a way that they had dodging in and about the boroughs Urban District Council areas. No doubt the line could be drawn between London and Greater London, but that would not get over the difficulty. If they could draw a distinct line which included the whole Metropolitan Police Force in the whole area of Greater London, he thought that would be reasonable, because outside that area the police were under different jurisdiction. Here they had an area administered from one centre, and the line drawn was indistinguishable to any person travelling through the country. That line gave a constable living in one street an advantage over a constable living in the next street. He was aware that the Metropolitan Police Force was considered to be one of the best forces in Great Britain, but he knew there was a feeling that the line drawn was a very unfair one. He should like to know how far the ratepayers would be affected. He had been told that the sum required would be somewhat larger than the hon. Member for Newington had stated, and that would be nearer £17,000 than £8,000. He should like to know how the expense of the police was distributed at the present time. Did the ratepayers outside the area of boroughs contribute anything towards the lodging allowance given to the police inside the boroughs? If the whole of this £17,000 was to fall on a certain section of the ratepayers it would prove to be a very heavy expense. If this rent aid allowance was included in a lump sum over the whole Metropolitan Police area, then that would be a much less burden than it would be if it fell only upon the particular districts

    637
    affected. It would make but a slight addition to the rates, and he was sure the ratepayers would be willing to give what was required in order to secure satisfaction in the police force. The request was brought forward last year, and resisted by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then the Home Secretary. He hoped the present holder of the office would not view it in the same light.
    MR. CROOKSjoined in the appeal to the Home Secretary to do something for the police. He was not much concerned whether the sum involved was £8,000 or £17,000. In either case it was not a large sum when one considered that a penny rate on the rateable value of London produced £160,000, and if the rate covered Greater London the amount produced would be nearly £250,000. He asked the Home Secretary to treat the police force as every employer treated his workmen, that was to give them one day's rest a week. At present the police only got one day off in thirteen days. The public were continually complaining that the men did not do this, that, and the other, but looking to their conditions, how could they expect them to be even half as good as they were? It was sad that they got seven days' holiday in the year, but that did not cover the case at all. If the Home Secretary would look at the reports of complaints against the police, he would find that they were usually made at the end of a wearying day, or near the end of the period when an officer was to get one day's holiday in thirteen. A policeman had not only to protect an enormous amount of property, but also the lives and limbs of the citizens in regulating the traffic. He had
    638
    to be not only a soldier, but a lawyer as well, and for that work he scarcely got enough pay to enable him to live, let alone keep a wife and family. He asked the Home Secretary whether it would not be possible for his Department to undertake the duty of looking after the manufacture and storage of explosives in Government establishments, as well as in other places. He had a report in his hand which contained a paragraph stating that notwithstanding the large increase in the manufacture of explosives, the average number of deaths had greatly decreased since the passing of the Explosives Act. That was to say that wherever the Home Office inspectors were allowed to go in and have something to do with the regulation of the manufacture and storage of explosives deaths had decreased. On the other hand where the inspectors had no such power deaths had increased. Why should not all manufactories, whether under the War Office or otherwise, come under the cognisance of the Home Office?
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Home Office has no control over the dockyards, and therefore it would be out of order to raise that question on this Vote.
    MR. CROOKSaccepted the ruling of the Chairman. At the same time the Committee would realise the difficulty of the position he was in when endeavouring, in a matter involving danger to life and limb, to show how accidents might be avoided by proper precaution and care. He thought the power of inspection by the Home Office under the Explosives Act ought to be extended to War Office establishments. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to use his personal influence and to place his inspectors at the service of the War

    639
    Office in order that there might not be a repetition of such a deplorable accident as recently occurred at Woolwich.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid those who had spoken of the police pay and administration were supported by a great mass of opinion outside. He desired to support the appeals of the hon. Members who had preceded him with regard to the institution of a uniform system of pay for the police throughout the whole of the force. There should not be regulations whereby a man on one side of the street was paid on a different scale from another man on the other side of the same street. The argument of the Home Office was that the line must be drawn somewhere, but surely the line should be drawn in such a way as not to to continue the present injustice. He believed that the action of hon. Members on this subject had not been brought about by any organised body of opinion among the police force. Speaking for himself he had not been approached by a single police officer on the subject. The facts brought before the Committee were facts which they had ascertained for themselves in their daily lives as Londoners. He felt that it was not necessary to make any Motion to-night, because he had an idea that the Committee would receive a statement from the Treasury Bench that something would be done to remove the evils of which they complained. If his right hon. friend, however, did not see his way to grant a concession he could assure him that feeling outside, which had been growing year by year, would continue to grow until hon. Members gained for the police that which they believed to be right.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he had twice in this House asked
    640
    the Home Secretary Questions on the subject of birching inflicted upon boys who were brought before the Police Courts, and against whom no charge was made for which birching was a legal punishment. There was one particular magistrate in London who was in the habit, when a boy came before him on a charge for which birching could not be legally inflicted, of suggesting to the parents that the boy should be birched by an officer of the court. In several cases this had been done. He was not discussing the general question of birching, though he held strong opinions upon it. He did not believe in it as a reformatory measure. But in these particular cases the complaint was that an official of the court, either a constable or a gaoler, was called upon to birch boys illegally. If a boy was to be birched outside the law surely the parent was the proper person to undertake the duty, but in cases to which he referred the birch rods were supplied by the Home Office, and the person who inflicted the punishment was in the pay of that office. He hoped the Committee would have an assurance from the Home Secretary that these illegal birchings would not be allowed. The Home Secretary had admitted, in reply to questions, that this had been done, but said that it was by arrangement with the parents. He urged that the right hon. Gentleman should issue instructions to the effect that the practice should not be continued.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,)said the Report to which the hon. Member for Woolwich had called attention in regard to the effect of inspection under the Explosives Act was a testimony to the manner in which the duties of the inspectors were

    641
    carried out. He entirely endorsed what the hon. Member had said as to the necessity for proper care and inspection in the War Office factories, but he was obliged to point out that that was not a matter in which the Home Secretary had any power whatever. They all deplored the accident by which so many lives were lost at Woolwich, and gladly would they see steps taken to make such loss of life less likely in future. The Home Secretary had been asked for certain additional privileges and pay for the Metropolitan Police force. He could assure the Committee that the Department he represented had the greatest regard and sympathy for the police force, but they must have regard to their duties as to economy. After a most careful departmental inquiry, the considerable concession was made in regard to pay. Every constable received an increase of 1s. 6d. a week, every sergeant one of 2s. a week, and every inspector one of 3s. a week. That involved a charge of £60,000 on the rates; and in addition a lodging allowance was made to the men resident in the Metropolitan boroughs. That cost another £30,000 a year. As to the arbitrary line between those who received this allowance and those who did not, the line must be drawn somewhere. There was no discontent in the force, and it was rarely boroughs that men in the suburbs cared to take up vacancies in the for the sake of the lodging allowance. As to the question of holidays, that must be left to the Commissioner, who was responsible for the discipline of the force, to settle with his men. The police got ten days holiday in the year on full pay, and that compared very favourably with the holidays given to other classes in the community.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked if no answer was to be given to his question.
    MR. COCHRANEsaid as to the question of birching, the real point was whether in the case of some boy who had committed an offence the parent should see him properly chastised, or whether the boy should go to prison. His idea was that the boy should be birched; and if the parent, perhaps a widow, was unable to control a good lusty boy there could be no objection to getting a policeman or a warder to administer the punishment.
    *CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he was not satisfied with the reply of the hon. Gentleman who represented the Home Office. There was no reason why a policeman patrolling one side of the street should receive 1s. 6d. per week less wages than a policeman on the other side of the street. The total cost of the reform which he asked would be something like £8,000, and it would not involve more than the very smallest fraction of a farthing on the ratepayers. In fact, it was the ratepayers in the suburban districts themselves who asked that all the men should be placed on the same rate of pay, and that evenhanded justice should be done. He must confess that he was immensely surprised that the Home Secretary did not see his way to do evenhanded justice to these 2,000 men, and therefore he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the salary of the Secretary of State."
    Committee divided:—Ayes, 21; Noes, 110. (Division List, No. 132.)

    AYES.

    Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

    Ure, Alexander

    Black, Alexander William

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Weir, James Galloway

    Brigg, John

    Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E

    Caldwell, James

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Cremer, William Randal

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Captain Norton and Mr.

    Crooks William,

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w)

    Claude Hay.

    Delany, William

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Mount, William Arthur

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Percy, Earl

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

    Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Forster, Henry William

    Purvis, Robert

    Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Bignold, Arthur

    Fyler, John Arthur

    Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Bill, Charles

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Russell, T. W.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire

    Brassey, Albert

    Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn

    Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc

    Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

    Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Gretton, John

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Hamilton, Rt.Hn.LordG(Midd'x

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

    Spear, John Ward

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.JA. (Worc

    Hobhouse, RtHnH (Somrst E

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

    Talbot, RtHnJ.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks, N. R.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Craig, Charles C. (Antrim, S.)

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Crean, Eugene

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Whiteley, H(Ashton-und-Lyne

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Wood, James

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Milvain, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

    Sir Alexander Acland-

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

    Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

    Original question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,157, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Scotland (8 and 9 Vic, c. 83; 52 and 53 Vic, c. 50; 57 and 58 Vic, c. 58; 60 and 61 Vic, c. 38; and various other Statutes)."
    MR. WEIRsaid he was astonished that in the Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland there was only one small paragraph referring to the Highland counties. That was not a fair way of treating the Highlands. He complained of the inadequate supply of water, not only to private houses but
    644
    to schools. The local authorities failed to give effect in many cases to the recommendations of the sanitary inspectors; and it was the duty of the Local Government Board to see that these recommendations were carried out. In many parts of the Highlands the condition of the houses was deplorable, the cattle being only separated from the family living and sleeping room by a low boarding. That was contrary to the Public Health Act, and it was the duty of the Local Government Board to see that the law was obeyed.
    And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
    Adjourned at Three minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Alexandra Park and Palace Bill; North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill. Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
Scottish Ontario and Manitoba Land Company Bill [H.L.]. Committed.
Wirral Railway Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Hampton Court Gas Bill; Lochnell Estate Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Middles borough Corporation Bill. The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on Thursday and Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tram-ways Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Crystal Palace District Gas Bill. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Brighton Corporation Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Great Central Railway Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 15th of May and the 15th of June last discharged; and Bill committed.
Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Ipswich Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Birmingham District Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill (No. 133); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill (No. 134); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill (No. 135); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill (No. 136). Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Forth Navigation Order Confirmation Bill; Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill; Edinburgh Corporation (Markets, Slaughter-houses, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill; Grangemouth Water Order Confirmation Bill; Lanarkshire Electricity and Refuse Destruction Order Confirmation Bill. To be read 3a tomorrow.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: Further Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (accord-to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a(according to Order): and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6.) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of the Working Classes) Bill. Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Rickmansworth Gas Bill [H.L.]; Harrogate Water Bill [H.L] Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Coal Mines (Certificates) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  ROYAL DECLARATION BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of: of Roman Catholics in Bishopton; Bristol; Belling-ham, Northumberland; Malton and Norton; Everingham; Redcar; Yarm; Thirsk; Leyburn; Skipton; Scorton; South Bank; Richmond; Whitby; Wakefield and Ossett; Pickering; Ampleforth; Lartington; St. Wilfrid's, York; St. Mary's Parish, Hull; St. Charles' Parish, Hull; Kingston-on-Hull; Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  ROYAL DECLARATION BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions against: of the Imperial Protestant Federation (2); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  DYSENTERY.
  Report of the Commission on the Nature, Pathology, Causation, and Prevention of Dysentery, and its relationship to enteric fever (appointed by the Secretary of State for War, August, 1900): Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PUBLIC RECORDS (OFFICE OF LAND REVENUE RECORDS AND ENROLMENTS).
  Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents from the Office of the Land Revenue Records and Enrolments which are now in the Public Record Office, but are not considered of sufficient value to justify their preservation therein.
  RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES ACT, 1864.
  Report by the Board of Trade, on an application made during the year 1902, under the Railways Construction Facilities Act, 1864, and of the proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES POWERS ACT, 1864.
  Report by the Board of Trade, on applications made during the year 1902 under the Railway Companies Powers Act, 1864, and of the proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882–1890 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Report by the Board of Trade, respecting the applications to and proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882–1890, during the past year.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (BORROWING) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow (The Lord President (D. Devonshire)); and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. (No. 132.)

  CONDITION OF HOLYROOD PALACE.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR): My Lords, I wish to make a personal statement with reference to the discussion about the condition of Holyrood Palace which took place on Monday last. Some misapprehension appears to exist as to what actually passed between the Lord High Commissioner and the Office of Works, owing to part of one letter only having been quoted in this House. On reconsideration of the matter, and in order to clear it up, I think it is right to lay the correspondence, and the Reports to which it refers, upon the Table.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Will that include the note from Sir Schomberg M'Donnell?
  LORD WINDSOR: It will include that letter.

  CONTRACTS (INDIA OFFICE) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The EARL OF HARD-WICKE): My Lords, by Section 5 of the Government of India Act, 1859—
  "All contracts in writing entered into by the Secretary of State in Council with the concurrence of a majority of votes at a meeting may be expressed to be made by the Secretary of State in Council under that designation and if such as made between private persons would be by law required to be under seal may be made varied or discharged under the hands and seals of two members of the Council or if such as if made between private persons would be by law required to be signed by the parties to be charged therewith may be made varied or discharged under the hands of two members of the Council and the benefit and
  494
  liability of such contract shall pass to the Secretary of State in Council for the time being."
  Speaking generally the mode of contracting provided by this Section is strictly followed with regard to contracts made on behalf of the Secretary of State in Council. There are some contracts, especially those for the purchase of goods and for freight, in which the observance of the formalities laid down by the section would in a business sense be impossible. Tenders have to be invited and accepted and acted upon with a promptitude to which that procedure would be fatal. Contracts of this nature have accordingly been entered into under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State instead of in the manner mentioned in the section. Doubts have, however, arisen with regard to the legal validity of such contracts. The object of the present Bill is to remove those doubts.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a. (The Earl of Hardwicke.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  ROYAL DECLARATION BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I fully concur with those who hold it to be most desirable that a Bill on so important a subject as the Royal Declaration should be introduced by His Majesty's Government and not by a private Member. As, however, His Majesty's Government have given no evidence, since 1901, of the slightest intention or desire on their part to respond to the appeals which have been made to them by the Catholics of the Empire to repeal the Statute which requires the Sovereign to make an anti-Catholic Declaration on his accession, there is no option open to those private and independent Members who believe the abolition of the Declaration to be required in the interests of the Empire, but to press upon the acceptance of the House a Bill for the removal of an undoubted grievance which is really

  495
  felt by many millions of His Majesty's loyal subjects in various parts of the Empire. It will be within the recollection of the House that two years ago the character of the Declaration which was required by Statute from the Sovereign on his accession, and before he met his Parliament, came as a startling shock upon this House and the liberal sentiment of this country. A Committee, consisting practically of the two Front Benches, was appointed to consider the whole subject, with the result that the Prime Minister introduced a Bill which the Government hoped would reconcile the Catholics to the Declaration which they suggested the Sovereign should be required to make on his accession. In introducing the Bill Lord Salisbury pointed out that the Declaration now required from the Sovereign—
  "Denounced in the most offensive form the religion to which the Roman Catholics were passionately attached,"
  and that it was only—
  "Natural that they should look upon it as a real grievance that language of a most violent and objectionable kind should be used against the Articles of their Faith at the most solemn moment of his reign by the Sovereign when ascending the Throne,"
  and these statements naturally led to his conclusion that it was incumbent upon Parliament to deal with the Declaration in such a way as to purge from it those terms which were offensive and painful to the Roman Catholic subjects of the King.
  The House will recollect that the amending Bill brought forward to give effect to the recommendations of the two Front Benches was not received with enthusiasm by any part of this House. It was recognised that the amended Declaration which, it was suggested, should take the place of the old, was practically tantamount to a new test, and was consequently open on that account to serious objection. There was a very strong feeling in some quarters of the House which, if it did not find public expression, was brought to my personal notice, that it might even be preferable to keep the old form untouched, notwithstanding the offensive terms in which it was couched, inasmuch as it might be regarded with
  496
  a certain amount of philosophic indifference as an obsolete and archaic formula with no greater present significance than a bit of rusty armour, than to give in this twentieth century fresh Parliamentary sanction to a new Declaration, which selected out of all the creeds practised in the Empire the Articles of the Roman Catholic Faith alone for special repudiation by the Sovereign. However politely worded such a Declaration might be, it must be obvious that it could not fail to be offensive to the Catholics, by giving them cause to feel that they were the subjects, not of that equality of treatment which it is the boast of our Government that we accord to all our religions, but of treatment of which they had a very proper reason to complain. It was obvious that the Bill had not behind it that force of opinion required to drive it through the other House of Parliament, and the result was, the Bill was discreetly dropped. But the matter remains to-day just as urgent as it was when Lord Salisbury pointed out that we could not leave the Declaration where it stands, and we have a right to expect from His Majesty's Government a Bill of their own if they cannot accept mine.
  The appeals to His Majesty's Government to which I propose briefly to refer from various parts of the Empire, will, I think, convince the House that if Parliament is in earnest in its desire to consolidate the Empire, the sooner we listen to the appeals from the colonies to amend the Declaration the better. But before I refer to these petitions I wish the House to consider whether the Declaration complained of is in any way essential to the Protestant succession or the maintenance of the Protestant character of the Crown. Your Lord-ships must be aware that apart from the Declaration, which is the subject of this Bill, the law elsewhere provides, by the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, that if the Sovereign holds communion with the Church or See of Rome, or professes the Popish religion, or marries a Papist, his Crown, ipso facto, passes from his head to that of the next Protestant heir, and his subjects are absolved from all allegiance to him. Further, the

  497
  Sovereign is required to swear at his coronation that he will, to the utmost of his power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law. I maintain that the law which uncrowns the King if he professes the Popish religion, or marries a Papist, coupled with the securities provided by the oath which he is obliged to take to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law, give us all the security that even the most cautious lawyer can desire to ensure the Protestant character of the Crown.
  Now, if it be admitted that the making of this Declaration is wholly superfluous, and altogether unnecessary if our sole object is to maintain the Protestant character of the Crown, I would proceed to ask, Is it desirable to put into the mouth of the Sovereign, at the most solemn moment of his reign, a Declaration of a purely negative character, and couched in terms which a Buddhist or Mahomedan, or any infidel, could conscientiously subscribe to, when we know such Declaration cannot fail to wound the feelings and affront the sentiments of every Roman Catholic? For fear, my Lords, that my action in moving in the matter may be imputed to wrong motives, I wish to make it quite clear that I do not approach the consideration of this question from any theological standpoint. I am most reluctant to press my own beliefs upon the attention of the House, but I think it desirable to state that I do not believe there is any Member in your Lordships' House who in his beliefs is further removed than I am from the faiths which are dear to either Roman Catholics or to my noble relative, Lord Halifax; nor do I believe there is any Member of this House who is more seriously impressed than I am with the conviction that the principle of sacerdotalism is a highly dangerous principle, and if allowed to acquire a position of ascendency is likely to prove fatal to that free growth of individual freedom of conscience, thought, and action which I regard as the very foundation of our national prosperity.
  I approach the consideration of this question from a very different standpoint than that of sympathy with
  498
  Roman Catholic doctrines. I approach it from a feeling of justice to the Catholics which causes me to resent placing them in a position inferior to that of the Buddhist and Mahomedan subjects of the King, and also from a conviction that the interests of the Empire require us to remove, and without delay, a grievance which, if unremoved, may at some future time be made the excuse of disloyalty to the Crown. I wish to impress upon the House that we cannot continue to ignore the appeals which have been made to Parliament to remove the grievance complained of by the Catholic subjects of the King, without running risk of alienating their affection, or, at any rate, of diminishing their loyalty to the Crown. Remember that the King has 12,000,000 Catholic subjects—that 43 per cent. of the population of Canada are Catholics, and one-third of the Australian contingents that fought for the Crown in South Africa also belong to the Roman Catholic Church. I proceed to read the Resolution that was passed by the Canadian House of Commons at Ottawa in 1901 on the Motion of the Prime Minister, Sir W. Laurier:—
  "Your Majesty's most faithful subjects, the Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave most humbly to represent that as a token of civil and religious liberties, and of the equality of rights guaranteed to all subjects in the Canadian Confederation, as well as under the British Constitution, a British Sovereign shall not be called upon to make any declaration offensive to the religions belief of any subject of the British Crown."
  In speaking to this Resolution, Sir Wilfrid said:—
  "I may be asked why should this declaration be removed from the law? Simply because it is offensive; simply because it is painful to Roman Catholic subjects who honour their King and are loyal subjects, who are ready to fight, and, if need be, to die for his crown; it is painful to them that he, should take such an oath against doctrines which are dear and sacred to them. That is the reason, the only reason."
  He went on to point out that the pride and devotion which they all took in this great Empire, which was the first refuge of liberty, would be more enthusiastic if that legislation, the last remnant of persecuting ages, were to be blotted out for ever from the Statute-books of free England. In support of

  499
  this Resolution of the Canadian House of Commons a joint letter from the Archbishops and Bishops of British North America was addressed, on behalf of the Roman Catholics, to his late eminence, Cardinal Vaughan, thanking him for his protest against the declaration—
  "which an iniquitous legislation still imposed on the Sovereign of England."
  In this letter they expressed the hope that the hour had come to efface from the Statutes of the Empire that evil reminder of former discord and hate, and that the beginning of the reign of Edward VII might besignalised by such a change in the wording of the Oath of Accession as would contribute powerfully to promote the unity of his people, and to increase in the hearts of Catholics the gratitude they have never failed to show for similar reforms. They further maintained that the Catholics, who had never been sparing of their loyalty to the Crown, had the right to claim in return that the Crown, in the person of the Sovereign, should respect their most sacred and cherished beliefs.
  Sir Edmund Barton, the Federal Prime Minister of Australia, forwarded to His Majesty's Government a no less remarkable appeal from the Catholic Hierarchy of the Australian Commonwealth. In this appeal they recorded their solemn protest against the studied insult offered to the Catholic subjects of the Empire by the Declaration—which they regarded as in this twentieth century an outrage against common-sense, and an infringement of the religious equality to which they are entitled by the constitution of their Commonwealth, and which they cherished as their birthright. From this appeal, forwarded by the Prime Minister of the Australian Commonwealth to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I read the following passage, which I am sure will not fall on unsympathetic ears—
  "One-third of the Australian military contingents who are fighting for the honour and the interests of the Empire in South Africa are Catholics. With them religion and freedom and loyalty go hand in hand. It cannot be prudent or honourable or wise to repay their heroism and patriotism by wanton insult, and to brand their most sacred convictions with a stigma of infamy from which the beliefs of other subjects of the Empire, even of Buddhists and Hindus and Zulus, are exempt."
  500
  The same note of religious equality to which expression is given in the protests against the Declaration from Canada and Australia is to be found in the protests-forwarded by the Roman Catholics of India against the Declaration made by the King before the British Imperial. Parliament on February 14th, 1901. A few days before that date the Catholic people of Mangalore, South Canara, forming about 25 per cent. of the population, assembled in solemn meeting and swore allegiance to their King, Emperor Edward VII., all the more joyfully because the—
  "Proclamation of Queen Victoria in 1858 assured us all that we, her Indian subjects, should never he molested or disquieted by reason of our religious faith."
  They maintained that the Declaration was a violation of the promise contained in the Proclamation of 1858, the Charter of their liberties, and they expressed a hope that the opprobrium of a bygone illiberal age would be wiped out without delay, so that they might be enabled to join heart and soul in the rejoicings of the Coronation day.
  Similar protests against the repetition, of the Declaration of any future occasion were sent from Bombay and other parts of India; and in Ceylon, on the occasion of the visit of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, so deeply did the Catholic population, which was stated to be 265,000, feel on the subject, that they submitted to H.R.H. an Address expressing a hope that before he is called upon to ascend the throne of England "this outrageous law" will have disappeared from the Statutes of the Empire; and in the course of their address they gave expression to the profound sorrow which they felt that—
  "Owing to the retention on the Statute-book of a law passed in less happy times, at the moment when all races and creeds throughout the Empire are hastening forward to tender their homage and dutiful service to their Sovereign, Catholics alone are rebuffed with wounding words directed against two of the most cherished tenets of their holy religion."
  I could submit to the House quotations from similar addresses from Mauritius, Malta and other Catholic Communities, but think it unnecessary to do so. I hope the evidence I have already supplied will have convinced the House that the retention in the Statute-book of the Declaration is a serious thorn in the flesh of our Roman Catholic fellow subjects,

  501
  and that it is important in the interests of the Empire that it should quickly be removed. The Preamble to the Bill shows that the Declaration is wholly unnecessary to secure the Protestant character of the Crown. It is evident that the Protestant character of the Crown is amply and abundantly secured by other provisions of the law which no one has any desire to touch. I say the Declaration is ineffective even for the purpose for which it is designed, because there is nothing to prevent a man who has made the Declaration from being converted by a perfectly honest change of mind to the adoption of beliefs he had previously denounced. I further maintain that the Declaration is not only ineffective for the purpose for which it was designed, and if it were effective, wholly unnecessary, but that it is purely mischievous, inasmuch as it tends to alienate those whom we desire to draw closer. It may be said it is desirable that some sort of Declaration should be made by the King on his accession to show that he is a Protestant. I may remind the House that the Constitution of the Empire of Germany does not prescribe any form of oath to be taken by the Emperor on his accession, and that under the Constitution of the United States no religious test is required as a qualification for the office of President. But I confess if the House is in favour of the King being called upon to make on his accession a Declaration of the same character as the Oath sworn by him at his Coronation, I am prepared with my friends to accept an Amendment which shall require the Sovereign at the time and place at which he or she would have been required to make the Declaration to take the oath which is by law prescribed to be taken at the Coronation. I have endeavoured to place before the House certain considerations which appear to me to be conclusive, in favour of our Parliament responding to the appeals which have been made to it by the Catholics of the Empire. I know no consideration which can possibly be urged against the Second Reading of the Bill except that which suggests that the present time is inopportune for the stirring of this subject. That argument, of course, is always available when no better argument is forthcoming. The
  502
  chief objection to the Bill is the fear that silly and ignorant people may mistake the action of Parliament in passing this Bill as a weakening of the securities in favour of the Protestant character of the Grown. I would respectfully ask you, my Lords, whether the unreasoning fears of these people are for one moment to be allowed to outweigh the very solid grievance, which I have shown is naturally felt by 12,000,000 subjects, of the King.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(Earl Grey.)
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I think it highly probable that many of your Lordships, on observing that my noble friend was about to bring forward this Bill, felt that you would have been quite as well pleased if the matter had been left alone, on the principle of the old proverb, "Let sleeping dogs lie." But my noble friend might very well say, in answer to such an objection, that this question, if not dealt with now, is bound from time to time to reappear, and there are obvious advantages in discussing and dealing with it in the earlier stages of a reign rather than postponing it to an indefinite time. At any rate, the matter is before the House now and must be dealt with. There are three main views entertained in the country regarding this subject, and they are no doubt all represented in this House. There are, first, those who are in favour of a modification of the Declaration, though they may not be prepared, at least not yet, to advocate its abolition. Secondly, there are those—and they represent a considerable and important body of opinion—who strongly object to any change; and thirdly, there are those who like my noble friend wish to see the Declaration removed altogether. As we all know, an attempt has been made to revise the Declaration, but that attempt was not a success. It is extremely difficult to remodel and revise words of this kind. There are in the Book of Common Prayer certain formula regarded with less than love by a great many devout Churchmen. The occupants of the Episcopal Bench are only too well aware of the heart-searchings which have troubled

  503
  many Churchmen on that subject, but it appears to have been thought best to leave that matter untouched. With regard to this Declaration, I was a member of the Committee appointed to deal with it, but I cannot say that I look back to the proceedings of that Committee with any very great satisfaction. No doubt it was a record Committee from the point of view of rapidity of action. It is an open secret, I think, that the actual business of the Committee was conducted in an extraordinarily short space of time, the idea, I suppose, being that the least said was soonest mended. But it appears that another proverb would more appropriately apply, namely, "More hurry worse speed."
  I speak with great respect of those who hold the opinion that there should be no interference with the Declaration, but I think their scruples are largely based on misapprehension—on the belief that this Declaration provides a guarantee for the Protestant succession. But, once admit the possibility of some reservation or subterfuge such as the Declaration is supposed to guard us against, and I do not see how it will be prevented by piling one phrase of disavowal upon another. The disavowal of any dispensation from the Pope for making the Declaration falsely is useless, for, if there, can be such a dispensation, what is to prevent a further dispensation for saying none has been received? I am afraid an idea has grown up that it does give security to the cause of Protestantism that this public Declaration against Roman Catholicism should be made by the Sovereign. I do not know what forms have to be followed in the Coronation, for instance, of the King of the Belgians; but suppose that the Sovereign of that country, in view of the fact that Catholicism is the recognised State religion there, was expected to utter some strongly condemnatory words regarding Protestantism; would not the Protestants not only of that country, but also of this, complain that that was a gratuitous Affront to their religion? I would draw attention to the fact that this Bill does not propose that there should be no Declaration at all; it only provides that this particular Declaration should be done away with. I listened with great interest to what my noble friend hinted
  504
  as to the possibility of an Amendment to the Bill being introduced which should provide for the substitution, either of the Oath taken by the King at the time of the Coronation, or of some other simple utterance by the Sovereign, as to his or her adherence to the Protestant faith. I would direct attention to the signatures attached to the document inviting your Lordships to support this Bill. Most of the signatories have held high positions as representatives of the Sovereign in outlying portions of the Empire. These noble Lords have had a peculiar opportunity of taking a wide survey of the various questions surrounding this particular topic, and I think the fact that they support this Bill is not without its significance. I strongly demur to the idea that the proposal in this Bill is a mere yielding to sentiment. It is much more than that. It is a proposal to remove friction and irritation. It is a proposal to remove an ineffective test, and one which may be held by a Sovereign professing a non-Christian religion. Therefore I hope His Majesty's Government, even if they cannot endorse the proposal of the Bill, will give a favourable consideration to it as a possible mode of dealing with the question, seeing that it does not shut the door to some future substitute for the present Declaration which we have endeavoured to amend without success.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, your Lordships will naturally expect that something should be said as to the view taken by the occupants of the Episcopal Benches with regard to the constitutional change proposed in this Bill. After all that passed two years ago, there is, as my noble friend has shown, a widespread feeling, not only in this House and in the country but in the colonies, that this matter can hardly be allowed to remain indefinitely exactly where it stands now. However that may be, I should like to say a few words on the principle of the matter and on the specific proposal of my noble friend. Perhaps I may begin by re stating the bare principles upon which, I suppose, the whole of the House and those interested in the matter outside are practically agreed with reference to subjects of this kind. We are happily living at a time when, and in a country where, not only

  505
  the fullest liberty of individual opinion but the amplest liberty also for the outspoken expression of that opinion, is both tolerated and encouraged by all. But at the same time it may be said that most people are agreed that there are certain exceptions to that largely-stated principle both in the Church and in the State. Those who are accredited alike by Church and State to be religious teachers of a particular kind are expected to make some declaration respecting their belief at the outset of their public work, and either to adhere to that declaration or voluntarily, or if need be compulsorily, to retire or be retired from the office they hold on condition of having made such a specific declaration.
  In addition to this, I suppose it is true that the nation has made up its mind, as the outcome of the historical events of 200 years ago, that a man or woman who holds the reins of sovereignty in this country should be subjected to a test as to the attitude which he or she takes in religious matters, should make a public and formal declaration to that effect, and should specially show that the sovereignty is not held by one who belongs to the communion of the Roman Catholic Church. No one, I imagine, disputes the fact that such is the nation's will or that every reasonable security ought to be provided for giving effect to that will. But after saying all this, I desire to affirm a further principle which no one would, I imagine, desire to dispute, that any declaration which is officially made should avoid giving needless pain or offence to those whose opinions are impugned and repudiated. So long as the oath or declaration is unambiguous in its terms and is effective for its purpose, every word ought to be avoided which could fairly cause a moment's pain to good men who entertain different opinions or who belong to the communion from which the Sovereign is debarred.
  These principles are accepted, not only in the House but outside it; and the practical question is, does the Declaration which we heard the Sovereign make two-and-a-half years ago from that Throne violate those principles in any way? I unhesitatingly say that I think it does. I think that it gives in its present terms needless and avoidable pain to religious minds alike in this House, in the country,
  506
  and in the Empire at large. It does this by the epithets which it employs respecting a particular religious doctrine, a doctrine which those who hold it follow with a passionate devotion. Repudiating that doctrine, as I personally do with all my might, I yet feel that it is described in the Declaration in terms which are quite needlessly offensive—one can use no other word—to those who hold that doctrine with all their hearts. The terms are an anachronism to-day. They may have been necessary, they certainly were not unusual, in official documents at the time when they were first put into their present shape. But a great deal has happened as regards the use of language, at all events, during the last 200 years; and whatever may have been the fact with regard to such epithets at the end of the seventeenth century, they are both unsuitable and offensive to-day. So far I am glad to be able to agree fully with the noble Earl. But when, as a remedy for that difficulty or grievance, my noble friend proposes simply to abolish altogether the obligation of making such a declaration, then I find myself obliged to part company from him. My noble friend argued that the securities which would remain under the existing law, if this Declaration ceased to be required from the Sovereign, are amply sufficient to provide, against the contingency which that Declaration is meant to secure us from. My noble friend relies mainly on the Coronation oath, but be relies also on the specific terms of the Bill of Rights and of the Act of Settlement.
  With regard to the Coronation oath, the general purport of the words appears at first sight to be so obvious and indisputable that the result we desire seems to be attained without any question or doubt at all. We are not dealing with the general purport of the phrases used, however, but with something much more technical and requiring much more careful sifting and thought, unless the lessons which history has taught are to be altogether disregarded. We are dealing with words which in the past history of England have been shown to be liable to have an extraordinary strain placed upon them, and which have proved practically insufficient to bear the

  507
  strain. James II. took a Coronation oath which was not exactly in the terms in which the oath was taken by our gracious Sovereign. With the omission of certain words which, I think, do not affect the question, the terms in which that oath was administered were these:—
  "Sir, will you grant and keep and by your oath confirm to the people of England … the true profession of the Gospel established in this kingdom, and agreeing to the prerogative of the Kings thereof and the ancient customs of the realm?"
  Immense questionings immediately arose as to what was the effect of the King's having taken that oath. With a view of seeing how the matter was regarded by those who ought to look at it most fairly, at all events without any Protestant bias, I turned this afternoon to the account of the Roman Catholic historian Lingard, who says:—
  Many looked with suspicion on the facility with which he had sworn without any qualification to keep and preserve the rights of the Church, and his enemies afterwards charged him with deliberate perjury, as if he had taken the oath with a fixed resolution of violating it afterwards.… More probably he had persuaded himself that no event would subsequently happen to bring the rights claimed by the Church into direct collision with those rights which he claimed for himself as rights indefeasibly inherent in the Crown."
  I mention that to show that those perfectly capable of forming an opinion may arrive at very different conclusions as to the exact meaning of the subscription of an oath on the character of which the noble Earl so strongly relies. King James, at his first Privy Council, said—
  "I shall make it my endeavour to preserve this Government, both in Church and State, as it is now by law established."
  That speech gave the in tensest satisfaction, and the Bishops presented an address in which they said that that admirable declaration ought to be written down in letters of gold. I refer to this simply to show how what is felt at the time may be falsified after a little interval. We are not speaking, of course, of a personal or contemporary question. We are looking far ahead; and I venture to believe that the fact that anxieties on such a subject are impossible at this moment—are so alien from our minds as to make the whole thing appear to be
  508
  inappropriate—is not without its peril in considering what may be the result of such a Bill as this, which would abolish the declaration, and leave it practically unimposable hereafter in circumstances which a hundred years hence may be very different from those which happily prevail to-day.
  But, apart from that, does the Coronation Oath, even when we interpret it with the utmost strictness, necessarily bind the Sovereign to more than this, that he will protect and shield, and do his best to maintain the religion which is at the time established in the land? I can conceive those words subjected even now to a strain such as I have referred to. There might be in different parts of the Empire oaths or promises taken for maintaining what might not inconceivably be established forms of faith quite other than Christian; the Sovereign of the Empire might declare his readiness to maintain the Buddhist, the Hindoo, or the Mahomedan faith, which was held by his subjects in some part of the Empire. I do not say that that is a natural interpretation, but we have to consider what the words are capable of being strained to mean in exigencies of a very peculiar kind. Then I imagine that there is no legal obligation on the Sovereign to hold the Coronation at any very early date in his reign. I do not press that point; but I think it is worthy of note that if we relied on the Coronation oath by itself it would be necessary to take care that the oath was taken at the time of the accession to the Throne, or at the first opening of Parliament. The noble Earl relies also on the Act of Settlement and the corresponding Acts. That Act provides that any one who inherits the Crown and—
  "Shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry a Papist shall be subject to such incapacities as in such case or cases"
  are provided by the recited Act. That Act is most valuable as showing indisputably what was, and I believe what is, the mind of the English people; but I venture to think that in addition to that security from without we need some security from within that is binding in faro conscientiœ on the Sovereign.

  509
  I hope the noble Earl will pardon me for saying that I think he was almost trifling when he argued that we had no right to impose a disability with regard to one form of religion and not to feel ourselves bound to impose it equally with regard to other forms. I think he mentioned Mahomedanism and Buddhism. But history cannot be disregarded in matters of this kind. It is simply impossible to look back along the last few centuries of English life and regard the parallel as a true one between the dangers which might conceivably arise in the future, as they have in the past, with regard to one particular form of faith, and the difficulties which might conceivably arise with regard to those creeds which have nothing to do with Christianity at all. It should be noted that the objection of my noble friend cuts against the whole Act of Settlement. My noble friend will have to go a great deal further than this Bill if he desires to remove altogether any difference of profession or security with regard to two forms of peril which might some day conceivably beset the English nation. I do not wish to say one word which could legitimately give pain to anyone; but is it possible for any man who reads the story of the Church and the nation towards the close of the 17th century, especially in the light of the documents which have recently been made public to a larger extent than they were in days gone by, without feeling that the peril then guarded against was a real one? And it is not, in the abstract, inconceivable that it might occur again. In my judgment, at least, we do require some kind of declaration, or promise, or undertaking to be given by the Sovereign personally as regards the position he holds in relation to great articles of the Christian Faith.
  But if it be true, as I think it is, that some such Declaration is necessary, it surely does not follow that it need be couched in insulting words; and I do not think that it need, strictly speaking, denounce anything at all. It seems to me perfectly possible, at least it is not beyond the wit of man, to devise a Declaration which should be mainly positive rather than negative in character and form. Indeed, one of
  510
  your Lordships, being himself a member of the Roman Catholic Church (Lord Llandaff), did draw up a Declaration of a positive kind which was intended to meet that particular difficulty. But, be that as it may, I do not believe it is impossible to draw up a Declaration which should avoid not only anything offensive, but anything denunciatory, and which should be of such a positive kind as I have suggested. I believe such words can be found; but it will not be easy. It cannot be accomplished in a few minutes, or even in a few hours; and I think it would require the co-operation of even a larger body of those who have thought carefully over such subjects than the Committee which took it in hand two years ago. I venture to believe that the members of the Roman Catholic Church in this House would themselves be most helpful, perhaps among the most capable, coadjutors to draw up a declaration of that kind I look forward not unhopefully to such a result, provided it is taken in hand with the care it deserves, with an enlargement of the number of those who have to consider it as compared with what happened on a previous occasion, and with adequate time given to its consideration. I believe I am speaking in the name of every Bishop on these Benches when I say that it would be our earnest desire, if invited to do so, to co-operate to the utmost of our power in producing such a result and in removing from the phraseology of the Declaration anything which could possibly give pain to those from whom we are differing very strongly and decidedly, but as to whom nothing is further from our thoughts than a desire to give pain or offence in any way. But there it one thing quite certain, such a task can be properly taken in hand only by the Government of the day. Be that Government what it may, it is to the Government of the day that we are bound to look for a constitutional change of this kind. It is essentially a constitutional change, and one which might be of the highest gravity. I regret that it is impossible for me to give my vote in favour of the Bill; but I trust that the matter will not be allowed to rest and that, under the auspices of the Government, we may have the task of amending the form of Declaration taken in

  511
  hand with determination and vigour. For such an endeavour I can ensure co-operation on the part of the Bishops not only as a matter of duty but with a glad heart and a ready mind.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships deeply regret the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, and greatly sympathise with the cause of it. It is doubly unfortunate that my noble friends Lord Tweedmouth and Lord Crewe who, with Lord Spencer, served upon the Committee which was appointed in 1891, are also unavoidably absent, and it is with extreme diffidence that I ask your Lordships to allow me to address a few words to you on this important subject. I wish to ask the noble Duke the Leader of the House whether the Government are prepared to take up this question and legislate upon it, or are they prepared to leave it in the state of chaos in which it now is. As your Lordships will remember, a Committee was appointed in 1891 to deal with this subject. That Committee was composed of very distinguished personages, and I am given to understand that before they set about their task it was their opinion that all they had to do was to eliminate from the Declaration the particular words which gave pain to our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. When, however, the Report of the Committee was presented to your Lordships, it became evident that what was considered to be necessary by Roman Catholic Peers and others was that all reference to the repudiation of any dogma whatever should be taken from the Declaration. There were many discussions in your Lordships' House on this question, and notwithstanding the opposition offered to the Bill the Government insisted upon its being passed by this House. It was passed and sent to the other House, and from that time to this we have heard nothing more about the question. What I want to ask the noble Duke is whether that is a position which the Government accepts, or whether they have any intention of dealing with this obviously important subject themselves. I endorse what the most rev. Primate said in the concluding words of his admirable speech, that this is a
  512
  question which ought not to be dealt with by a private Member, however distinguished and capable he may be. It ought to be dealt with by the Government, and by the Government alone, and it is not a matter that ought to be allowed to wait. It is surely not right that the burden of taking such an odious declaration should be imposed on future monarchs. If the Government are not prepared to deal with this subject, if they are not prepared to frame a declaration such as that which the most rev. Primate referred to, it seems to me less disadvantageous to abolish the declaration altogether. If the Government are not prepared to say that they will deal with this subject, I, for my part, although I feel the greatest reluctance in voting for a Bill which is not authorised by the responsible Minister, shall feel very much inclined, as a protest against the inaction of the Government, to follow my noble friend into the lobby in support of the Second Reading of his Bill.
  *VISCOUNI LLANDAFF: My Lords, I intrude with great reluctance in the debate on this subject, in which I naturally feel a strong personal interest. May I at the outset express our thanks to the noble Earl who has brought in this Bill. He has not only earned the gratitude of all the Roman Catholics in the Empire, but he has continued those illustrious traditions which are inseparably connected with the name he bears. I listened with the greatest attention and interest to what fell from the most rev. Primate. The prominent point, as it seemed to me, in his argument was that some security from within, as contrasted with securities from without, was necessary in order to secure the Protestant succession. It is not enough that adherence to the Roman Catholic religion, that communion with the Church of Rome, or that even marriage with a Papist, renders the Crown forfeitable, that is not security enough in the judgment of the most rev. Primate.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I should be very sorry to be supposed to have said that such enactments, if they could be enforced

  513
  with certainty, would be insufficient. What I endeavoured to point out was the difficulty of ascertaining, otherwise than by a declaration from within, whether or not the person in question is in fact "holding communion with" the Church of Rome.
  *VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: I confess I should have thought that when an Act of Parliament says that communion with the Church of Rome, or reconcilement to the Church of Rome, involves forfeiture of the Crown, and when that same Act goes on to say the Sovereign shall be in communion with the Church of England, I should have thought that that did not admit of any doubt. The added security of this Declaration avails only for the instant of the Sovereign's accession; from his accession to his death you have to depend upon the security of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights. The opinions expressed by the Sovereign at the moment of his accession may change in the next year, but you have no security except the ample security of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. I contend that, apart from the declaration, ample provision is made for the security of the Protestant succession by the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. The sting of the declaration is not in the epithets, but in its blind, passionate intolerance. As long as you keep the condemnation of doctrines standing, the epithets are signified and implied, although they are not spoken. At this solemn moment, when all races and creeds are drawing round the throne, anxious to express their loyalty, Roman Catholics alone are rebuffed by words which outrage their most sacred convictions. It is a grievance that any doctrine lawfully held by us should be singled out for special condemnation by the Sovereign. The most rev. Primate entered at some length upon the history of this Declaration, but he omitted to remind your Lordships that it was not invented for the purpose of securing the Protestant succession. The authors of this Declaration framed it in order to exclude Catholics from the Houses of Parliament, and it had that effect for 150 years. The framers of the Bill of Rights, who felt that James II. might possibly return to
  514
  this country, or attempt to return, had this declaration inserted in the Bill of Rights as a special precaution. The danger against which the Bill of Rights was aimed has gone and is completely at an end. I should like to quote to your Lordships the legislation that has been introduced into India. In the Indian Penal Code I find this enactment—
  "Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious feeling of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend for one year, or fine, or both."
  Therefore the language of the Declaration, if used in India to worshippers of Juggernaut, would make the user guilty of a criminal offence. I am unable to reconcile the tenderness of the Indian Penal Code with the roughness shown to the oldest and most widely spread religious community in the world by this declaration. Parliament has relieved every subject of such a painful necessity and leaves the Sovereign alone subject to it, and obliges him—I am sure against his will—to utter a theological denunciation at the most solemn moment of his reign. The noble Lord opposite has asked His Majesty's Government whether they will give a pledge to deal with this subject. I do not expect they will; but I make an earnest appeal to the noble Duke not to make the opposition to this Bill a Government or a Party matter, but to leave his followers to vote as they think right on the subject. It is in no sense a Party question. The noble Duke not long ago delivered a most able and powerful argument in favour of open questions. I think this question, as well as that of Catholic Emancipation, should be treated as an open question, and I trust that it will not be voted upon as a Party matter in the way it was two years ago. I by no means wish to exclude the possibility of framing some form of declaration that may satisfy Protestant feeling and seem to give sufficient security for the Protestant character of the Sovereign, but I am bound to say that the fate of the Bill of two years ago does not give me great confidence that such a result can be arrived at.
  LORD ROBERTSON: My Lords, I have listened with especial pleasure, to the noble and learned Lord, who has every right to claim our attention because he is largely responsible for the present state of this question. I daresay it will be in your Lordships' recollection that the question which was discussed with so much interest and animation on several occasions two years ago was entirely different from that which is being discussed to-day. At that time it came as a surprise to His Majesty's subjects that part of the ceremonial of His Majesty's succession consisted in a declaration containing the language which has been characterised by the most rev. Primate. I am certain that men of all creeds were shocked at this relic of former times, and every one was most anxious that means should be devised whereby the terms in that Declaration, which were regarded as offensive, might be got rid of. I think I am in your Lordships' recollection when I say that the question was merely as to the terms of the Declaration, and not as to the existence of the Declaration itself. The feeling which operated so strongly on the sympathy of His Majesty's subjects was that Roman Catholics, whose illustrious services in the present and preceding reign are fresh in our memory, should be forced to listen to doctrines most sacred to them being described in terms so strong and so excessive. I am quite sure that in every part of the House there was an honest determination to eliminate those terms which gave offence. But what happened? An amended Declaration was proposed. I was never a great admirer of the new Declaration—and objections to it arose. Then my noble and learned friend, on 5th August, 1901, declared that he preferred the retention of the offensive language and its rugged barbarity in the hope that wiser councils would prevail, rather than consent to a milder and less offensive form of Declaration, which was still objectionable and which it would be difficult to get rid of. The noble and learned Lord considered he had a vested interest in it as affording him a lever to get rid of the whole Declaration. Therefore my noble and learned friend is the author of the predicament in which
  516
  the House finds itself. Lord Aberdeen seemed to throw out the idea that we had better get rid of this Declaration, then patch up something which would be agreeable to all parties. I venture to hope the House will not proceed in that preposterous fashion. It is asked, "Why do you single out Roman Catholicism and omit Buddhism and Mahomedanism from the Declaration?" Because there never has been an attempt by a Mahomedan King of England to impose the Mahomedan religion upon the people of England, and because no Buddhist King, stimulated by Buddhist priests, has played false with the constitution of this country; and until historical illustrations of that kind can be given the talk about Buddhists and Mahomedans is very much out of the question. I am certain that there are great masses of the people of this country who are strongly of opinion that the Sovereign should on his accession, in the full blaze of publicity, repudiate the doctrines of the Church of Rome. It seems to me, therefore, that unless and until an effort is made to modify the terms of the Oath this question should be left alone. I decline to fall into the trap of parting with this Declaration in the hope or on the chance of getting something else. The course to adopt is to modify the Declaration.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, I am quite sure that I am only expressing what every Roman Catholic feels when I say that it is most painful to us that the most sacred tenets of our religion should be singled out on his accession for repudiation by our beloved and revered Sovereign, to whom we are most devoted and loyal. Two years ago it was felt that this Declaration ought to be altered, and a Committee was appointed to bring up a new form of words. It was decided, rightly or wrongly, that no Roman Catholic Peer should be a member of that Committee. The Roman Catholic Peers desired to lay their views before that Committee, but, much to their surprise, they were given no opportunity whatever of doing so and no means were adopted to ascertain what it was we objected to. We did not move in the matter last year, because we felt that the year of the Coronation was not a very seemly occasion to bring up a question which

  517
  might raise angry disputes. But we have never shrunk from declaring that we regard the terms of the Declaration as a great grievance; and we feel that the honest and straightforward course would be to remove it altogether. I have heard no arguments to show that the Coronation Oath does not fully cover the ground. The Roman Catholics of this country fully accept the principle—though we cannot be held to agree with it—that the Sovereign should be a Protestant. We recognised the fact that the nation is Protestant. But we feel deeply that it is only the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church that are outraged in the most cruel way, and that that outrage is all the more wanton on account of the public manner in which it is done.
  LORD STANMORE: My Lords, there Is a historical point which I think it is most important that your Lordships should have well in your minds before dividing on this question. It has been alluded to by Lord Llandaff, and it is in the mind of everyone that this was not originally intended as an oath to ensure Protestant succession. It was an oath directed in the first instance to preventing Roman Catholics holding office or occupying seats in this House, and it was to prevent executive power being exercised in favourof the Roman Catholic religion. It was extended to the King for the reason that the King at that time had in his hands the whole exercise of executive power. There was no place under the Crown to which the King could not then, by his own personal will, appoint. He could give every commission in the Army; he could appoint justices of the peace, then much more important than now; and he could not only use that power, but he could abuse it. James II. did so abuse it; he used his executive power as King to help the interests of the Roman Catholic Church. He gave away commissions to Roman Catholics; he appointed Roman Catholic justices; he even went so far as to introduce Roman Catholics on to the Bench of Bishops; and the nation rightly saw that that executive power which it had already prevented from being exercised by Roman Catholics in humbler walks should not be exercised by the King. But now the executive power is no longer in the hands of the King, but is exercised
  518
  for him by his Ministers, who are responsible to Parliament. If we are to hold to the antiquated idea that these declarations and oaths are to be the means by which we are to ensure ourselves against the abuse of executive power, it is not the King, but the advisers of the King—it is those Members of the Privy Council who give him advice and who practically have all appointments in their hands—who ought to make the declaration. In its language the Declaration is an anachronism and an absurdity. The time for these Declarations has passed. The change of the national point of view is illustrated by the fact that a Roman Catholic Home Secretary, now a Member of your Lordships' House, was some years ago appointed without a word of popular protest, and he discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the country. It is quite clear that this unhappy Declaration cannot last much longer and must disappear in its present form.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (the Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the noble Duke behind me made some complaint of the procedure of the Committee appointed two years ago. I was not a member of that Committee, and I do not think I was particularly concerned in the arrangements for its appointment; but I am under a strong impression, which I should be surprised to find is not correct, that an invitation was addressed to the Roman Catholic Members of this House to take part in the Committee, and that it was entirely owing to their unwillingness to serve that no Roman Catholic member was appointed. It strikes me that any reason the noble Duke may have for complaining of the manner in which the proceedings of that Committee were conducted, and any absence of communication he might have to complain of, would have been removed if the noble Duke had consented to assist the deliberations of that Committee.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: It was notified to us from the highest quarter, not connected with ourselves, that probably it would be better on the whole if we were not on the Committee. I was not objecting to our not being on the

  519
  Committee. What I objected to was that there was no sort of communication with us, and that we were not even asked what we expected the Committee could do.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think my statement is confirmed that it was perfectly open to the noble Duke, or to any other Roman Catholic Peer, to have sat upon the Committee; and I still adhere to my opinion that the best means of establishing any communication between the Committee and the Roman Catholic Members would have been for one or more of them to have been on the Committee. Before I attempt to reply to the Questions addressed to me, I cannot avoid making one or two observations as to the procedure which has been adopted in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. It was introduced either in last week or in the previous week. As your Lordships know, the introduction of a Bill is a purely formal proceeding, and, as a matter of fact, the Bill itself was not in your Lordships' hands till last Tuesday, and on Thursday we are asked to give it a Second Reading.
  EARL GREY: I handed in the Bill to be printed on the same night that I introduced it, and I was under the impression that it would be circulated with the Votes on the following day, or on Saturday at the latest.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: As a matter of fact the Bill was in your Lordships' hands on Tuesday, and on Thursday we were asked to give it a Second Reading. Not only so. I know that my noble friend was asked to defer the Second Beading, because it was absolutely impossible that the Lord Chancellor, who it might have been supposed ought to be present when such a Bill was to be considered, could be in his place to-day. Even this was refused by the noble Earl opposite in his haste to amend the Constitution and to remove—not to amend—the constitutional security to which the great part of the people of this country are supremely and deeply attached. The noble Earl must know that this is a question which touches the sincere and honest convictions—they may be mistaken, but they are sincere and honestly held convictions—of a very large
  520
  number of the subjects of His Majesty, than whom none could be more loyal, none more attached to the Constitution. It touches the convictions of a large number of men who would feel the greatest apprehension at what they would consider any weakening, much more the removal, of a Declaration which, in their opinion, is a most valuable security for the maintenance of the Protestant succession to the Throne of this country; and, notwithstanding that knowledge, which the noble Earl must possess, he asks your Lordships to pass this Bill, almost without notice, and at a time when not one in 1,000, not one I should think in 100,000 of the people of this country know that such a proposal has even been made.
  My Lords, I think we have had a most interesting and most able discussion; but if we have, it has not been owing to any consideration on the part of the noble Earl which would enable Members of this House to take part in the discussion of so important a question; and I cannot help expressing my conviction that the course which has been adopted is one which certainly is not in the highest degree respectful either to the Members of this House, or to the country at large. Reference has already been made to the recent, history of this question, and your Lordships will not fail to remember that His Majesty's Government have, in regard to this Declaration, a policy of their own which was laid before this House, and fully explained. That policy was, while retaining the Declaration in its substance and in its essential features, to eliminate from it all the words and expressions which were held, and I think justly held, to be of an offensive character or of a nature calculated to wound the feelings of a great many loyal subjects of His Majesty. A Committee was, in the first instance, appointed, and they examined this Declaration. They recommended another form of Declaration, and the proposal of the Committee, embodied in the form of a Bill, was laid before your Lordships' House. Owing to, and in consequence of, the attitude which was assumed by the Roman Catholic Members of the House, an attitude which I am bound to say they do not appear to have departed from in any degree, it was found useless to proceed any further with that measure. That was the policy of His Majesty's

  521
  Government two years ago, and that is the policy of His Majesty's Government now.
  If there were any reason to suppose that the attitude of the Roman Catholic community, as represented by noble Lords who sit in this House, towards the proposed alteration of this Declaration, was in any degree modified, His Majesty's Government would be perfectly ready on a fitting opportunity to renew the proposals which they made two years ago—I do not know that they would be necessarily in exactly the same form. Your Lordships must also remember that while it was the policy of the Government to introduce what they considered necessary and desirable Amendments into the Declaration, it was equally their policy that a Declaration substantially to the same effect should remain a part of the law of the country. I see very little advantage, and I see a great many objections, to entering into the reasons which, in our judgment, as well as in the judgment of many noble Lords who sit opposite, make the retention of such a Declaration necessary. They have been stated with clearness and, at the same time, with admirable calmness and moderation in the debate this evening. Your Lordships cannot imagine that if this question were raised as one of practical consideration in the other House of Parliament and for discussion throughout the country, the same tone of moderation would prevail. His Majesty's Government are of opinion that to raise this question at a time when there is no probability of its leading to a settlement would be likely to revive religious controversy and to provoke controversial discussions far more likely to retard than to facilitate any possible settlement of the question. I think I have stated accurately what was the policy of His Majesty's Government two years ago; but, lest there should be any misapprehension whatever on the subject. I do not think I could do better than to read two very short extracts from the speeches of the late Prime Minister on this subject, which defined then, and still accurately define, the position of His Majesty's Government. On the Second Reading of the Bill which was before your Lordships' House two years ago Lord Salisbury said—
  "The object of the Committee was that these offensive expressions should be withdrawn, and
  522
  that so much change as was necessary for the purpose should be made in the now Statutory Declaration. We never promised to go further than that. We do not desire to enter into the question, though we do not conceal our own opinion that a Declaration is necessary, or at all events highly expedient, for the maintenance of the Protestant succession. But that is not the point which we submit for the consideration of Parliament."
  Again on the Third Reading, when the attitude of the Roman Catholic Peers had been fully declared, Lord Salisbury said—
  "We now know that they do not wish these offensive words to be withdrawn unless at the same time there is withdrawn that Declaration for the security of the Protestant succession, which we never for a single moment indicated that we had any intention of dispensing with.… We know sufficient of the opinion of those whose voices are powerful in this matter to know that outside the Bill which we are now passing there is no alternative of change, and that what you are doing by rejecting the Bill is to lay down that the old Declaration shall remain in the same words such as it has been for more than two centuries past. I am sorry that it should be so, but do not let it be said that it is our doing that that Declaration is maintained. If the Roman Catholics had willed it, if they had been consenting parties, if they had not been active opponents, I think there was a very fair chance of removing what I admit to be a stain upon the Statute-book."
  Now, my Lords, those were the opinions of His Majesty's Government two years ago, and I do not think that in any degree or in any detail we have seen any reason to modify those opinions. They were not only the opinions of the Government; they were substantially also the opinions which were held by other Members of this House occupying very responsible positions. In the course of those debates the noble Earl (Lord Rosebery) said—
  "But that does not prove that the test should not be applied and that the Declaration should not be made. On the contrary, I hold that the Declaration is one of great importance as being made at a solemn moment, at the moment of accession and again renewed in another form at the moment of Coronation, and that therefore you cannot dispense with it. You cannot dispense with it for this reason. It is regarded by the great mass of the nation as a guarantee. You cannot get over that fact. You are not dealing entirely with exalted minds who see but little to bind in Declarations of this kind, but you are dealing with the great mass of the nation, deeply imbued with Protestantism, deeply suspicious of any departure from Protestantism, and determined, so far as it can, that in no essential particular, shall this Declaration be relaxed."

  523
  And I think that the last words that were uttered in the debate two years ago were by Lord Spencer, who said—
  "I am convinced that the feeling in this country is so profound and so strong on the subject of the Protestant succession, and there are such exaggerated views of what the old Declaration means, that it would be perfectly futile even for His Majesty's Government, with all their strength, to have proposed a material alteration in that Declaration."
  Now my Lords, I maintain that in the face of these declarations, not only on the part of His Majesty's Government but also on the part of responsible Statesmen on all sides of the House, it would be nothing less than trifling with the House to ask it, without substituting anything in the place of this Declaration, to sweep away a security to which such a degree of importance has been attributed by every responsible Member of the House who has spoken on the subject, and which, as I have said, is deeply valued by the great majority of the people of this nation.
  My Lords, we are asked to do away with this Declaration solely, as far as I can see, on the ground that it would be a graceful and conciliatory act to our Roman Catholic fellow subjects. That is, I think, practically the only plea which has been put forward for sweeping away this Declaration. I cannot think it would be an act of conciliation to our Roman Catholic fellow subjects to provoke a controversy which every man in this House must know would be an acute and bitter controversy, throughout the length and breadth of this land, turning partly on historical, partly on constitutional, and to a large extent on theological questions. I cannot think that it is conciliation of our Roman Catholic fellow subjects to provoke such a discussion and controversy. I do not know that I need say more except to point out, merely as an illustration of the care, or the want of care, with which the noble Earl has introduced this great and important question to the consideration of your Lordships, that under this Bill, as it stands, it would be perfectly possible for a Roman Catholic to hold the Crown for one or two or several years before his Coronation without being called upon to make any declaration whatever.
  524
  The noble Earl relies on two securities; in the first place on the Coronation Oath, but, as has been pointed out, there is no necessity that that oath should be taken within a very considerable period after the accession of the Sovereign. He relies also on the provisions of the Bill of Rights, which provides that anyone professing, or being reconciled to, the Church of Rome shall ipso facto cease to be Sovereign of these Realms. But the noble Earl does not explain how, in the absence of any declaration, it is to be ascertained whether the Sovereign holds Roman Catholic tenets or not. The noble Earl has no doubt expressed his willingness to assent to certain Amendments which he thinks might be accepted by those who support this Bill. But I submit that it is for those who propose such a constitutional change, which would so deeply irritate the feelings of a vast number of the people of this country, to prepare a complete measure for the acceptance of Parliament, and not to ask us to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which sweeps away a Declaration on which many of us put the highest value without knowing in the least what it is proposed to put in its place. An appeal was made to me by the noble Viscount behind me that no pressure should be put by the Government upon its supporters in this matter. That is a suggestion to which, I regret to say, I am altogether unable to give my assent. I do not think the Government would be discharging the responsibility which rests upon them if they were to refrain from any means in their power to prevent a question of this kind being presented for the consideration of the country in a manner which we believe would certainly not tend to its ultimate settlement, but which would raise controversies, especially in the present state of public opinion on these matters, which would lead to no consequences, excepting evil consequences, and to the greatest mischief in the country.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I do not propose to intervene for more than a few minutes between your Lordships and the division, the more especially as I think I do not differ from anything which has fallen from the noble Duke

  525
  in the course of his weighty and eloquent speech. Perhaps his hand fell rather heavily on my noble friend behind me for the want of notice he had given to your Lordships for the purpose of preparation for this debate. All I can say on that matter, not knowing the facts, is that I do not think the debate has justified the rebuke of the noble Duke, because since I have been in this House I have never heard a debate which more amply sustained its traditions, in the tone and eloquence with which this subject has been treated. The noble Duke has almost spared me the trouble of making any remarks on this occasion, because he read so lengthy an excerpt from a former speech of my own, that I felt I was almost discharged from further function in the matter.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Not too lengthy.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It is very good of the noble Duke to say so I am glad he took so much pleasure in reading it. I take a very deep and serious interest in this matter; and, though I consider that this debate has reached a very high line of argument and tone, I cannot but feel that we are sensibly further back from a solution of this question than we were two years ago. And I am sorry to say that I lay that chiefly at the door of the noble Viscount, Lord Llandaff, whom we always hear with so much pleasure, and whom we hear much too seldom in this House. He said to-night that he did not mind the offensiveness and the language of this Declaration, what he really cared about was the Declaration itself. If that be the attitude of the Roman Catholic Peers in this House, all I can say is that they render any settlement of this question impossible. The object of this House has been already defined, I think, by the speeches quoted of the late Prime Minister, in which he stated that it was impossible, for reasons which he gave and for others which will occur to your Lordships, to do away with this Declaration; we desire only to remove from the Declaration all that is unnecessary and offensive to our fellow-Christians who belong to another com
  526
  munion. But if the noble Viscount claims to go beyond that, if he claims to remove all declaration as being superfluous, unnecessary, and offensive, I am sorry to say that I think we shall proceed no further in this matter.
  *VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: All that I have contended for is that the Declaration should not contain specific condemnation of specific doctrines. Let it assert the Protestant faith of the Sovereign as clearly and emphatically as the noble Earl may wish, but let it not go out of its way to condemn the faith of other people.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I confess I was misled by what the noble Viscount said about language. But how is the Protestant faith—which, as its name denotes, is a protest against certain portions of the doctrines of the Roman Church—how is that to be satisfactorily defined, and defined in a sense to which the great mass of the people of this country are stoutly attached, without some such repudiation as that which the noble Viscount disclaims? That is the part of his speech which, I confess, disheartens me; for I believe, and I say it with regret, if it causes pain to him and those who agree with him, that no declaration can be made in the Protestant sense which does not contain some of that language of repudiation which he dislikes. I said that I agreed with all that fell from the noble Duke, but in one historical point, I confess, I was at variance with him. I think he gave too roseate an account of the transactions of the Government with regard to this matter two years ago. He said the Committee appointed by the Government had examined the Declaration and had made certain emendations in it. My information is that they did not examine the Declaration. I believe there is one witness behind me. I hardly like to touch on the point in the absence of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, with whom this matter was a very sensitive one, but I am inclined to think that there was no examination of the Declaration. The Committee's proceedings were somewhat summary, more summary than those of the noble Earl behind me, for dealing with this great question.

  527
  But let me say in a serious spirit that if you are to settle this question you must not embark on it again without some prospect of a settlement. I am very sorry that, whether for the reasons given by the noble Duke the Earl Marshal, or for others, the Roman Catholic Peers did not see fit to join in the deliberations of that Committee. I am still more sorry that, for reasons which have not been explained, the Committee did not invite from the Roman Catholic Peers some expressions of their opinions as to what might be done with regard to salving their feelings in this matter. Still more am I sorry that no Member of the right rev. Bench was invited to form part of that Committee, whose deliberations did seem to me to invite their co-operation in a most eminent degree. For your Lordships' Committee, in dealing with this subject, to sit for an hour, without the co-operation of the Roman Catholic peers, and without the co-operation of our own Bishops, is, it seems to me, to embark on an enterprise which is doomed to failure; for even with the best prognostics, even with every agreement which you can reach between these two great bodies, you still always have the House of Commons and the country to face in dealing with this matter. Therefore I hope that if the Government, and I think it is only the Government that can deal with such a matter as this, once more takes this matter in hand it will not be without careful consultation with and complete co-operation of both the Bishops and the Roman Catholic Peers.
  LORD BRAYE: The present Declaration is no guarantee, even from a Protestant point of view, for a Protestant succession, because, although the Sovereign might embrace the Catholic religion immediately after the Coronation, he would never be called on to make a fresh Declaration.
  EARL GREY: The noble Duke has thought fit to censure me for being guilty
  of a want of respect in the way in which I have brought this Bill before the attention of the House. I have already explained my position with reference to the notice which I gave to the House of this Bill. It is no new Bill. It was discussed fully two years ago.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Not this Bill.
  EARL GREY: The question is not a new one, and therefore I think that I am entitled to be exempted from the censure of the noble Duke in having brought forward the Bill after a week's notice. I also wish to clear myself from the imputation that I have been lacking in respect to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. I was anxious to meet the wishes of the Lord Chancellor, but I had already pledged myself to the Duke of Norfolk to bring forward the Bill this afternoon. The noble Duke had telegraphed to his friends telling them that the Bill would be taken to-day, and therefore I felt myself unable, much to my regret, to meet the request of the Lord Chancellor. I greatly regret that the noble Duke the Leader of the House has not seen his way to accede to the suggestion made by the most reverend the Primate, that this question cannot be left where it is. I had hoped that an assurance would be given that a new Committee would be appointed to inquire fully into the suggestion made by the most reverend Primate, who himself seemed to be of opinion that it would be quite possible to draw up a declaration which would satisfy the Protestant sentiment of the country without selecting doctrines of the Roman Catholic faith for special repudiation by the Sovereign on his accession. The fact that such a suggestion was made from such a quarter is ample and complete justification of my action in having brought forward this Bill.
  On Question, their Lordships divided, Contents, 62, Not-Contents, 109.

  CONTENTS

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Argyle, D.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Grey, E. [Teller.]

  Newcastle, D.

  Camperdown, E.

  Jersey, E.

  Rutland, D.

  Carlisle, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Ripon, M.

  Feversham, E.

  Lytton, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Berwick, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Mayo, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Killanin, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Braye, L.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Castletown, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Lyveden, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Mowbray, L.

  Dormer, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Fingall, L. (E Fingall.)

  North, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  O'Brien, L.

  Hampden, V. [Teller.]

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Petre, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Stanmore, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Acton, L.

  Heneage, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Herries, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Battersea, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Bangor, V.

  Foley, L.

  York, L. Abp.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Forester, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Glanusk, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Grenfell, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Manchester, D.

  Portman, V.

  Harris, L.

  Portland, D.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Hatherton, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Kenyon, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Manchester, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Muskerry, L.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Newlands, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Truro, L. Bp.

  Newton, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Ancaster, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Annesley, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Rosmead, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Silchester, L. (E Longford.)

  Egerton, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Belper, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Blythswood, L.

  Trevor, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

  Manvers, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Welby, L.

  Morton, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Portsmouth, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  Powis, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (EClanwilliam.

  Windsor, L.

  Romney, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.]

  Stanhope, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

  Dunboyne, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Elphinstone, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Resolved in the negative.

  THE RESERVATION OF THE COASTAL TRADE.
  LORD MUSKERRY, who had given notice "To call attention to the recommendation of the Subsidies Committee and the Resolution adopted at the Con
  530
  ference of Colonial Premiers regarding the reservation of the coastal trade of the British Empire, and to the fact that British shipowners are subjected to unfair competition owing to the coastal trade of practically all the foreign maritime powers being reserved to their own ships; and to move to resolve 'that

  531
  in the opinion of this House it is desirable that legislation on the terms of the recommendation of the Subsidies Committee and the Resolution adopted at the Conference of Colonial Premiers should be initiated by His Majesty's Government,'" said: My Lords, it is unnecessary for me to detain your Lordships at any great length in calling attention to the most important subject of the reservation of the coastal trade of the British Empire, especially when we have regard to the views which have been recently expounded by some of the leading members of His Majesty's Government in the way of the adoption of a system of preferential tariffs, which shall serve to still further consolidate the British Empire, and to draw closer the bonds of unity between the colonies and the mother country. I feel therefore that only a favourable answer can consistently be given to my advocacy of His Majesty's Government taking steps in reserving the great shipping trade, not only on our own coasts, but between this country and our colonies and vice versa, to British ships.
  I think your Lordships cannot but agree that it is a grave scandal that, for instance, foreign ships should actually be permitted, and do trade in competition with British shipowners in the coastal trade between ports in the United Kingdom, and, to go farther afield, they may trade between this country and our own colonies at an advantage against British shipowners, owing to their not complying with what are called "restrictions" upon British shipowners—praiseworthy "restrictions" I call them—for the ensuring of safety of life at sea. No doubt your Lordships would like to have some information as to what is the attitude adopted by other maritime Powers in regard to their shipping trade, and I may say that amongst those who will permit none but their own ships to carry on trade on their own coasts, or between their own ports and their colonies, are Belgium, France, Russia, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Brazil, United States, Egypt and others. As an instance I may explain that up till quite recently a very large trade was done by British ships bringing grain cargoes from Russian ports in the Black Sea through
  532
  the Mediterranean and round through the Baltic to St. Petersburg and other North Russian ports, which, as your Lordships know, is a voyage of some considerable duration. Russia is now, however, reserving to herself her coastal trade, and all this trade which has been carried on by British shipowners is lost to them. At the same time a Russian vessel is perfectly free to trade between British ports, and under more advantageous conditions, as I have previously explained, than British ships.
  My handsare considerably strengthened by two recommendations which His Majesty's Government cannot possibly ignore. One is that of the Subsidies Committee, which has recently concluded its deliberations. On referring to their Report I find it stated that:—
  "This class of restriction appears to be on the increase, so that the field for British trading throughout the world is becoming gradually but surely circumscribed. The United States, extend the doctrine so as to declare a voyage from New York round Cape Horn to San Francisco, or from San Francisco to Honolulu, to be a coasting voyage, and as such they restrict it to vessels carrying the United States flag. Similarly, France refuses to allow any but French vessels to trade between French ports and Algeria; and Russia, in reserving its coasting trade to its own flag, includes in this restriction the navigation between Russian ports in the Baltic and the Black Sea, and between all Russian ports and Vladivostock in the far east of Siberia. Such restrictions have seriously affected British trade."
  This will be no cause of surprise to your Lordships. Sir Robert Giffen, a very high authority, estimated that there would be a gain of 9 per cent. in trade by British vessels, and he stated that this was a considerable advantage. He did not fear reprisals, for, as foreigners already reserved their coasting trade, they would have no cause of complaint. The Committee say that Sir Robert Giffen's evidence as to the reservation of British Imperial coasting trade to British ships deserves very careful attention. The Committee desire specially to point out that as the coast-line of the British Empire is the greatest of any country in the world, Great Britain need have no serious fear of effective retaliation, even if most of them did not already do what is now suggested for Great Britain. The Committee think that the occasion has come when the question of the qualified reservation of British Imperial coasting

  533
  trade on the lines indicated should be considered by His Majesty's Government with a view to reserving the British and colonial coastwise trades and the Imperial coasting trade within the British Empire to British and colonial ships and vessels of those nations who throw open their coasting trade to British and colonial ships. The plain truths to which the Committee have drawn attention in this direction, and the very strong opinions they hold, make it imperative that your Lordships should not allow them to be relegated to the Parliamentary dust-heap where so many Blue-books bear testimony to futile labour and expense. I have the satisfaction of not only basing my remarks on this Motion upon the Report of the Subsidies Committee, but upon one of the most important Resolutions passed by the Conference of Colonial Premiers held in this country last year, which is destined to bring about a revolution of the principles upon which British trade has been carried on for many years. The question of preferential tariffs, which was also the subject of a Resolution by the Conference, is one in which His Majesty's Government are already moving, but, of course, this, as I understand His Majesty's Government to say, will require very deep thought and consideration to arrive at some practicable and workable scheme if the same appears advisable. Not so with the reservation of the coastal trade, for this has been thoroughly gone into by the Subsidies Committee, and valuable statistics are immediately at hand; therefore, so far as I can see, then is really no difficulty in the way of His Majesty's Government at once taking steps to carry out in practice the recommendations of the Subsidies Committee and the resolution of the Colonial Premiers, which is as follows—
  "That it is desirable that the attention of the Governments of the colonies and the United Kingdom should be called to the present state of the navigation laws in the Empire, and in other countries, and to the advisability of refusing the privileges of coastwise trade, including trade between the mother country and its colonies and possessions and between one colony or possession and another, to countries in which the corresponding trade is confined to ships of their own nationality, and also to the laws affecting shipping, with a view of seeing whether any other steps should be taken to promote Imperial trade in British vessels."
  As the noble Marquess the Secretary of
  534
  State for Foreign Affairs has told your Lordships—
  "Those distinguished colonial statesmen came here on purposes of business, and it is impossible having these Resolutions before us lightly to brush them on one side."
  They, my Lords, evidently recognise the supreme importance of cohesion and the consolidation of the interests of the Empire. What can be more important than our shipping industry and the maintenance of our sea commerce? It is of the most vital interest to our Empire; it is the industry which has principally contributed to make the English power what it is; it is what binds the mother country to our colonies and possessions abroad, and the decline of this industry would inevitably lead to the decline of the Empire.
  I take it that the first duty of the Royal Navy is the protection of the commerce of Great Britain. Rightly this Navy of which we are so proud is being augmented and kept in a high state of efficiency, but it is an extraordinary thing that practically nothing is done by the Government to keep up the efficiency and prosperity of the Mercantile Marine, which necessarily is our first reserve. The principal reason for maintaining such a large fleet of war vessels being the protection of our British merchant shipping, it seems to be a most serious neglect on the part of successive Governments of this country that no consideration should be extended to an industry which is the mainstay of the nation, but rather that every encouragement is extended to foreign vessels to compete against our own. And now, my Lords, I earnestly trust that you will support me in urging His Majesty's Government to take the necessary steps in carrying out a reform which will be of the greatest encouragement and assistance to British shipowners in the severe competition with which they now meet, and which is getting keener and keener as time goes on. In encouraging British shipowners you are also fortifying and nursing our splendid merchant service which performs a national duty, and which in reality is the very life-blood of our Empire. I will, in conclusion, read to your Lordships a letter I received two or three days ago which shows the existence of a very startling state of affairs:—
  "I have been an officer in the mercantile service, and at present I am a Port Sanitary

  535
  Inspector on the River Thames. Like myself, the majority of my colleagues have in their rime had command both in steam and sail. Each man of us, in the pursuit of our calling, inspect, on an average, about 3,000 ships per annum; it will thus be seen that for practical experience of the service ashore and afloat, in no other Port in the Kingdom can the same practical information on this phase of the question be had I am not going to give my opinion on the matter, but I will try to put before you the unanimous opinion of my brother inspectors, all old shipmasters, all sanitary inspectors.
  The first thing that we have noticed is that of late years nearly all the old clipper ships have been sold; a few only are left and the best school for training the young seamen is now a limited one. Most of these old iron ships are yet running with reduced crews under foreign flags—German and Norwegian, for the most part. The percentage of foreign bottoms using the port is increasing by leaps and bounds, one reason of this being that, within the last twenty years, factory after factory has had to shut up owing to being ruined by foreign competition—glass works, chinaware, hardware, bottle-making, toy-making, pianos, musical instruments, cabinet-making, seed-crushing, and many others. One of the last down here in East London to collapse … held out bravely, but they had to give in, and 1,600 men were thrown out of employment, and over £2,000 in wages lost to the district weekly.
  "The reason that the loss of an industry down here means an increase in foreign ships using the port is that as soon as the foreigner has firmly started on a firm basis the trade we have lost, he always sends the goods by one of his own, or his own country's ships, because it is probably cheaper, and it is patriotic at the same time. So you see loss of manufactures means in the end loss of transport. If the foreigner can export in his own bottoms, and make it pay, so could we if we had protection. We do not know what is going on in Liverpool, but of recent years the number of foreign ships trading on our coast without a break is on the increase, and, so far as London is concerned, we have foreign ships, mostly German and Norwegian, all the year round carrying coal from Newcastle, stones from the Channel Islands, coal from South Wales, clay from Poole, grit from Brideport, stone from Portland, and only the other day a small German schooner brought up to London a cargo of cement from Rochester—free trade with a vengeance. Although I am unable to say what good this state of affairs is to the country, I can tell what the harm is. Thousands of pounds sterling per week for freight are leaving the country that might remain here, and thousands of our seamen are out of work, many in despair have become casual labourers, or joined the ranks of the chronic unemployed.
  "Again, of late years, a large percentage of foreigners, mostly German, Norwegian, and Italian, have taken to trade entirely between London and our own colonies. They never go in any other trade; they load here of set purpose, because it pays them best. The obliging foreigner, not content with doing our own coasting trade, is thus gradually cutting into
  536
  our own colonial trade, and, as a matter of fact, any day a half dozen of these foreign ships, with not a single Britisher on board, may be seen loading in the South-West India Dock for the colonies. This state of affairs is gradually getting worse and worse all the time; the number of foreign boarding houses for foreigners is on the increase, the home people are being frozen out altogether, and bands of raw young German seamen are brought over here and touted and foisted upon any one that will hive them. I constantly meet these young men on our own coasters, and of course the supposition is that before they get there a certain amount of blood-money changes hands. Not only is the English A.B. being ousted, but many British ships carry no English officers, save perhaps the Master. Indeed, only last week the 'Loch Broom' came over from the Continent without a single British officer, and what officers there were had no certificates. This is constantly recurring. The Board of Trade Regulations are a mere farce—something like the Regulations to Board of Trade Surveyors re crew quarters, never by any means carried out unless by accident.
  "If this weakening of the service continues, in time it will mean that there will soon be a weakening of the Royal Naval Reserve; apart from that, in time of war the ships will require coal and stores and other transport. I take it tins is a most important point. Of course, if the aliens who now man nearly half the mercantile navy will do the fighting, repair the wastage in the Navy, and do the transport and feed the people of England at the same time, then no more need be said; but Sir, the sea is our birthright for us and our boys, and if you can do anything to keep us from being ousted from our own ships and from our own trade with our brethren across the sea, you will have earned the gratitude of all British seamen."
  I have taken the trouble to inquire whether the facts stated in this letter are true, and I find that they are. Surely, therefore, it cannot be denied that they indicate a serious state of affairs which cannot be allowed to continue.
  Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that legislation on the terms of the recommendation of the Subsidies Committee and the resolution adopted at the Conference of Colonial Premiers should be initiated by His Majesty's Government.—(Lord Muskerry.)
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, as I understand the matter, it is not so much the coasting trade, in the narrower sense of the term, of the United Kingdom, and of the various colonies and dependencies, as the trade between the

  537
  different parts of the Empire that has to be borne in mind. The total tonnage of vessels entered and cleared annually in the trade between different parts of the British Empire — that is between the United Kingdom and the various colonies and possessions, and between the colonies and possessions (counting the Australian States as separate colonies, but not including any of the colonial coasting trade strictly so called) — is 36,814,000 tons, of which 32,310,000 tons are British and 4,504,000 foreign. Thus the percentage of British is 88 and of foreign 12. So far as the United Kingdom alone is concerned, 94 per cent. of the tonnage engaged in the coasting trade appears to be British. Such colonial figures as are available show a proportion of 96 per cent. British and 4 foreign. Of these small percentages of British coasting trade and trade between different parts of the Empire only a small fraction would be affected by the Resolution of Colonial Premiers, or the recommendation of the Committee. It should be borne in mind that, although France reserves the trade between the Atlantic and Mediterranean seaboards, and also the trade between France and Algeria, the carrying trade between France and her oversea colonies is open to foreign vessels on equal terms with French vessels. Also that, with certain relatively unimportant exceptions, five out of the seven principal foreign countries with oversea possessions—France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, and Portugal—throw open the carrying trade between the mother country and those possessions; but in the case of Germany the preference she gives by subsidies must be taken into account. Russia and the United States alone reserve the whole or the greater part of their trade between their distant coasts and with oversea possessions to national ships. Therefore the question, as limited by the Resolution of the Colonial Premiers, practically affects Russia and the United States alone, and the immediate consequence of giving effect to the Resolution would consequently be small. But the principle involved is important, and is so closely connected with the question of Fiscal Policy now under consideration that the Government must decline to make any separate pronouncement upon it at the present time. With
  538
  regard to the Report of the Subsidies Committee generally, I may say that the President of the Board of Trade was recently asked in the House of Commons how far the legislation applying at present to British shipping trading to ports in the United Kindom could be extended to vessels belonging to foreign owners, and in reply Mr. Gerald Balfour suggested that the most convenient course would be for a Member of the House of Commons to introduce a Bill embodying the views of the shipowners, and that the Government would be prepared to give favourable consideration to such a Bill on the understanding that, if read a second time, it should go to a Select Committee. I conclude that the noble Duke would adopt a similar course in the event of a Bill being introduced in this House. I trust that my noble friend will not press his Motion.
  LORD MUSKERRY: May I take it that the question will not be lost sight of by the Government?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): As this important question is connected with the larger question of the Fiscal Policy which the Government has now before it, the noble Lord may take it that neither one nor the other will be lost sight of.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  MOTOR TRAFFIC REGULATION.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I beg to ask His Majesty's Government when it is proposed to introduce the Bill dealing with the regulation of motor traffic.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): I regret the delay that has taken place. It has been inevitable. I am now able to assure the noble Earl that it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill and to express the hope, I think well-founded, that I may be able to present it in the course of next week.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.